Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > It's a waste of time and effort to pepper random ebuilds with checks > > > for options that everyone should have enabled in the first place. > > > > It's not for you to say what everyone should have enabled in their kernel. > > Do you not agree that there are some options that should always be > enabled, or at least that we can assume are enabled?
"Should be enabled" no, but I agree with the latter - some assumed set should be fine. I think it would be good if it's (somehow) documented though. > To use my earlier example, should every package that uses AF_INET > check for CONFIG_INET in the kernel? CONFIG_INET is a perhaps surprisingly tricky example! A package could e.g. use getaddrinfo() with no address family hint but because of USE=-ipv6 exclude all AF_INET6 address results and so end up using AF_INET based on whether it's available in the running kernel or even based on third party DNS entries. I'm not sure about the best approach for very basic options, CONFIG_NET could be another such candidate. Thinking towards robbat2's proposal (which I like) it might make sense to try to map requirements of packages, but there will probably be cases where it can't really be done successfully. Ultimately that work should not be the responsibility of distribution package maintainers but something upstreams deliver, similar to systemd units, but maybe we'll invent it (if noone else has).. //Peter
