On Tuesday 21 October 2003 3:25, Spider wrote: > begin quote > Then fix pcmcia-cs and alsa-driver before you suggest anything. as it > is, my machine won't boot properly without pcmcia-cs -and- alsa, as they > IRQ conflict unless loaded in a certain order.
Excuse me? "I" should fix these? > They are both dependant on the target module, and theres no way in a > gnomes purple hell you are going to get me into a state where I can > reboot first, and then rebuild the modules, only to reboot again so I > have a working boot session. uh-oh- NO. Under those conditions likely not..... > And no, you won't get me to emerge it with SLOT="purple-gnomes-2.4.44" > either, Just because I sat down and got my own kerneltree installed into > usr/src/testkernelwithextraJFSpatches , and then loose my existing , > working, tried kernelset. Okay, this part comes across barely intelligible, but if it helps substitute TARGET= for SLOT=.. of course I did point out it was a suggestion, not a solution, and you have offered up what counterproposal? > When you get this set to -automagically- detect the target kernel., > build modules and fix. then ok. Again with the when "i" thing... > if you want it to depend on the running kernel, erm... No. theres a few > things already that do so, and that is -BROKEN- behaviour. I don't even > -HAVE- the sources for my running kernel at most times. What? No I > don't need them. I shouldn't need to have my sources for the hard > compiled and working copy of 2.4.18-saviour with extra everything that I > know boots all my machines and I have in a .tar stored away for working > order. "I" don't want to have it depend on a running kernel, or on a symlink, All I was saying is that in most cases it'd probably be just easier to boot into a running kernel and build your non-essential mod package, I realize that this is not always the case. > Yes, this thread invoked a lot of hot emotions from my side. > > > // Spider Well, guess what? I was pretty pissed off _before_ I saw your mail, so you can imagine where I'm at now, especially since I've asked a couple of times why this symlink is necessary, when it's highly discouraged. If a package needs this symlink, mask it, get it fixed upstream or dont carry it at all ffs. I point out the bad ones when I see them, and I atleast proffered a suggestion. I was civil when this was a discussion, but turning this into a pissing match was sheer stupidity. But I guess I'm just the stupid end user with no say, I guess? Atleast when I'm being a prick, I only represent me. -- Chuck Brewer Registered Linux User #284015 Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature
