From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-57942-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AA113867C
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:59:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B1EB21C025;
	Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:59:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ia0-f169.google.com (mail-ia0-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A05AE05AF
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:59:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ia0-f169.google.com with SMTP id j5so480496iaf.14
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:59:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=FjN3oeLIiEqaTC3oP3mMfJWmxqrQ/x3cCIZl2relyvc=;
        b=gvxW0WVBwj4Hf7/oPMYvfteqsjOFsl4pfDdG4Fc40si866AL3Q+ivhNPRRh254O6sk
         eNW1muWzWsKPzrKpsJPsJJsmkX0nydRM0T7ZcJFtLgUXT/9aW+Qh5mNIgDPlUrQZapfY
         aK3LB0wUgclg1OOYxyywfQ0LOoBrhWJHAlvhSu/vxKyKgNRcbgJccdluBhe4ngR3691X
         wDMXHr5+02YLWM61DgbCD9qec1Azuk4K5Kq4uQD33qEhhBjiMZ+9v6AhDvP75Y1DCL0I
         nRjzfW1zvLqwRkZRUppV5vFnLAHeydQqKkgFVlFOhSZorwwpWtn63YZaA+uoi6Ii/ZTs
         xSxQ==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.203.37 with SMTP id kn5mr3809923igc.47.1359115150291;
 Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.30.231 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:59:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKmKYaBo4VhujuRF6Xn56JLKWS3g30mvshrvRddZHm2bJ6csfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50FFE241.6030107@gentoo.org>
	<CAKmKYaBo4VhujuRF6Xn56JLKWS3g30mvshrvRddZHm2bJ6csfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:59:10 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: dWslx31rvAKXOoCXmAridpESqSc
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_mVUagz2ZTE=D_C4unk34uKqNNJ0AE8LCTXZhDNEOmkBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] news item for udev 197-r3 upgrade (yes, I know, it's late)
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: f5e3ff00-38ee-4bbc-87e2-45a4ecff0b2a
X-Archives-Hash: a1569790c8cf85cc2628e2a2cd40977e

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
>
> Here's a crazy idea: can we patch our kernel to let "make oldconfig"
> default CONFIG_DEVTMPFS to true? Or better yet, request that this is
> changed upstream?

I could see making that the default if there is no .config file
present and a new one is being created, and perhaps upstream would
support that since udev is popular.  However, make oldconfig is
usually used when you have a .config file and you just want to update
it.  In that case I don't think we should be changing settings - what
if a user doesn't want this set?  They'd have to remember to manually
unset it every single time they compile a new kernel, as we'd be
"helpfully" changing it back.

Not everybody uses udev.

Somebody already brought this up, but the main thing users need is
notice for changes like this, and warnings.  By all means mention in
the warnings that their systems will be unbootable.  And by all means
let's cut down on spurious elog traffic otherwise.

Oh, here's another thought - when elog traffic gets sent out as email
can the subject line be changed based on the most serious message in
the log?  That is, can a log-only email be distinguished from one that
has a warning in it?

Rich