> The simplest, but ugliest, solution i can think of would be to add
> a "nomodule" USE flag to this ebuilds. A better approach would be
> to split them in two different ebuilds. For instance, slmodem
> could be split into "slmodem-module" and "slmodemd", with a
> "!alsa? ( ~net-dialup/slmodem-module-${PV} )" dependency from
> slmodemd, etc. Actually, for the packages i've looked at so
> far, spliting ebuilds seems rather easy.
>
> And we could even think of more complicated solutions involving
> virtuals (just like for the "Alsa is in 2.6 but not in 2.4" case),
> but i think that here it would be bloat.
>
> So what do you think? Could "Do not mix kernelspace and userspace"
> become a new ebuild guideline, or not? And would you be interested
> if i start working on some splitted ebuilds for the above cited
> packages?One thing I will suggest is looking at my recent linux-mod commits wrt CONFIG_CHECK="@OPTION:module" syntax. this will exclude the module if the OPTION exists in the kernel config, and will still build userland tools. > -- Role: Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead Gentoo Linux: http://www.gentoo.org Public Key: gpg --recv-keys 9C745515 Key fingerprint: A0AF F3C8 D699 A05A EC5C 24F7 95AA 241D 9C74 5515 Web: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9C745515
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
