From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5066 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2004 06:38:48 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (128.193.0.39) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Jan 2004 06:38:48 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AdkrY-0002Xy-HJ for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:38:48 +0000 Received: (qmail 10733 invoked by uid 50004); 6 Jan 2004 06:38:45 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 9647 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2004 06:38:44 +0000 From: Brian To: gentoo-portage-dev In-Reply-To: <1073237445.22251.13.camel@garath.local.domain> References: <1073027790.3678.24.camel@big_squirt.dol-sen.ca> <1073028705.11194.66.camel@Star.BerthoudWireless.net> <20040102102315.GA28754@phaenix.haell.com> <20040104125034.GD10062@phaenix.haell.com> <20040104161727.7b8e8e2e.genone@gentoo.org> <1073237445.22251.13.camel@garath.local.domain> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1073371301.3689.11.camel@big_squirt.dol-sen.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:41:41 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] kernel drivers vs. portage X-Archives-Salt: 05d0232e-3d23-4ac9-ad7a-ac7b4e05ac2a X-Archives-Hash: 637a261d618574d5e5e760c77a39eabd On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 09:30, Paul Varner wrote: > On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 09:17, Marius Mauch wrote: > > On 01/04/04 Drake Wyrm wrote: > > > > > What? No opinions, or everybody thinks I'm too much of an idiot to > > > bother answering? > > > > I think Daniel fixed that already by using the 'don't unmerge' feature > > of CONFIG_PROTECT for /lib/modules. > > It is fixed in the version of portage that is in CVS, but the fix still > hasn't made it to the versions of portage that are marked stable. In > the CVS tree it was placed in version 1.345 of portage.py. The version > that is being distributed is currently 1.341 (See my comments at the end > of bug #1477) > > A manual work around that I have tested is to use env > CONFIG_PROTECT="/lib/modules" when re-emerging packages such as > alsa-driver for a new kernel. However, I don't recommend placing it > into the make.conf as typically you only want to protect the > /lib/modules directory when doing the above. > > I also would like portage-ng to handle kernel modules dependencies in a > more automated fashion. Someone commented that revdep-rebuild was a > hack to get around some of the dependency shortcomings in the current > version of portage. The kernelmod-rebuild script that I recently wrote > is also such a hack. > > I didn't comment on the previous message as I didn't see anything that I > disagreed with from a requirements perspective. > > Regards, > Paul -- Thank you for working out this problem. I, for a second thought I may have instigated a change in portage for the better, but seeing the above metioned bug I see it dates back much farther. Even the fix has been done for several months. Again, thank you for the hard work to improve portage. A side note: Could changes, such as added features, or changed functionality in core projects such as portage be announced in the GWN as they make it to stable. (If it is not already normal) It may be one of the best ways for users to learn about such changes. -- Brian -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list