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 173F9138CD0 for ; Fri, 22 May 2015 12:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A9A2E08B5; Fri, 22 May 2015 12:47:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 522E6E0897 for ; Fri, 22 May 2015 12:47:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YvmMU-00007Z-DZ for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:47:38 +0200 Received: from 64.69.39.112 ([64.69.39.112]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:47:38 +0200 Received: from w41ter by 64.69.39.112 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:47:38 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: walt Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: [~and64] Headsup for google-chrome users Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 05:47:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20150521214455.34017eb1@hal9000.localdomain> <555E6F22.8090200@gmail.com> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.69.39.112 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 In-Reply-To: <555E6F22.8090200@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 713f1ad8-1564-416c-b29b-f10949c28f5e X-Archives-Hash: c32293944f53ff2adf8dbbf69f08853e On 05/21/2015 04:49 PM, Dale wrote: > Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:44 PM, wrote: >>> walt wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>>> Then, after I figured out that CONFIG_USER_NS is a kernel config item, >>>> requiring reinstallation of my kernel, I wasted more time figuring out >>>> (for the n'th time) that you shouldn't just change a single kernel >>>> config item and do "make" because that shortcut can break important >>>> things. >>>> >>>> No, you should do "make clean" first, and then do "make" etc. >>> [...] >>> >>> I haven't done a "make clean" for years when I compiled a kernel and I >>> never had any problems. >> Then you have not made any critical config changes, or you have been very lucky. >> >> > > Then so have I. I have changed one thing a lot of times over the years, > run make and it work fine. Most of the time, it is when emerge spits > out that a option is needed for a package to work. Honestly, this is > the first time I recall hearing this should even be done. The first n times I discovered than "make clean" prevents (some) problems (sometimes) is when I was running the daily unstable kernels directly from Linus's git repo. As you would expect, I had to git-bisect a lot of kernel bugs over the years, and along the way I discovered that doing the exact-same bisect on the exact- same source code could produce different results -- results that were just plain wrong sometimes. That problem disappeared when I started doing "make clean" after every bisect, painful though it seemed at the time. I'm now much too old and grouchy to debug unstable kernels every day, though.