From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86172138820 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:03:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A6FC421C03A; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:03:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com (mail-we0-f179.google.com [74.125.82.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC4C721C027 for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x43so4149992wey.24 for ; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 04:03:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zqd9DjwB6s4ijVp4X+ZbO7wkkR5G0nRWn0tHYgfQ/7c=; b=G2Bzt+7qQKJm7w9Pgc8W2jGoRZoC2lUv4hfp7izlCF5+KukM3rqe6DTUA9+Xnlg0FF Z8kLswNInyPdw0dAROdLfldQyruX7XqoWxS1B2nXx1aNvMRizol+XCd9PWfRyNxj8cUv 6laCK+m6Q+PtL/mUO+t3kKglMvwwTQJgtWBa7Nl1fhaIP90e5r/w6CIxXheRSXNJblbn 6H1FXWDUAjqsGDr4kBSgJxxZcCpUqhU5j/fHIs8UF1H1/9ODhoXcavex7YRDlZOZPtE2 75QnHTzlrJjqXcdh4MkY2mni9WBuEpYn2CSP37Z+vxwU3vHIuKpfhgrN7rG4DwqCju7q 90aQ== X-Received: by 10.194.90.11 with SMTP id bs11mr29976043wjb.18.1359893012507; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 04:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.0.41] (196-215-2-98.dynamic.isadsl.co.za. [196.215.2.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dp3sm2230872wib.10.2013.02.03.04.03.30 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Feb 2013 04:03:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <510E51DF.3070201@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:02:39 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130114 Thunderbird/17.0.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev-191 bit me. Insufficient ptys References: <20130202162110.1623aaa5@weird.wonkology.org> <20130202211738.66a72582@khamul.example.com> <20130202203157.0bc3ba12@digimed.co.uk> <510D7B53.3090406@gmail.com> <20130203112416.400b433a@digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20130203112416.400b433a@digimed.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3f0ec515-e8fd-41de-a309-794862124b77 X-Archives-Hash: a4bacfb6d79c61488ff893b118c486d1 On 03/02/2013 13:24, Neil Bothwick wrote: >>> I may be suffering from faulty wetRAM, but I'm sure I've seen ebuilds >>> > > bail because f incorrect kernel configuration in the past. >>> > > >>> > > >> > Just because the ebuild does it, does not mean it's correct to do it. > Nor does it make it wrong. I'm all for Gentoo allowing you to shoot > yourself in the foot, I just think it's a good idea to let you know the > gun is pointing at your foot before you pull the trigger. Updating udev > without the correct kernel options WILL break the currently running > system. And that is the problem. WHICH kernel config and for WHICH kernel? The ebuild has no way of knowing and there is no sane mechanism for the user to indicate which one the ebuild should use. Any solution you come up with is going to be fraught with difficulties. Remember that kernel ebuilds are unique, it is the one packages where nothing is built or put into a runnable state, the ebuild only unpacks the tarball. So the ebuild cannot know what the config is going to be, it cannot know what kernel is going to run, it cannot fix any flag errors it finds, it cannot even know where your sources are or even if you have a kernel package installed at all. You quite possibly do not have a /boot/.config and you might not have enabled /proc/config.gz. See how deep this goes? In short, there is absolutely no sane approach the ebuild could follow to protect you from yourself. Yes, it might help YOU in YOUR particular setup, whilst infuriating others who do it differently. Think it through logically, the only thing you are left with that works is to inform the user of what is found and suggest approaches to take. If you are going to go that route, you might as well print a generic message that applies to all, backed up with a news item. I'm not saying the ebuild should not help you out, I'm saying that ebuild cannot help you sanely, and the existing ebuilds that get it very wrong whilst trying to be helpful re kernel configs simply prove the point. -- alan.mckinnon@gmail.com