-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robin H. Johnson wrote: > If you feel like reviewing ~140 packages and filing bugs for them, I > won't stop you. But I'm just going to go and fix the ones that seem > simple enough to me, and only file bugs for the complex ones.
Ok, I'll do what I can tomorrow. I'm off to bed now... 5:) > Err, I'm not following what you claim is the problem here? > > cat/foo-mod: > inherit linux-mod > CONFIG_CHECK="!option" > > ... > > The user sets USE=-modules because they have built cat/foo-mod on their > own, into the kernel. foo-mod installs nothing Just checking that it will actually install nothing, rather than failing out with an error because the kernel has "option" set. I'm just re-iterating that CONFIG_CHECK should only occur if USE="modules". If USE="-modules", then the CONFIG_CHECK options should probably be ignored shouldn't they? > It needs to be ALWAYS available. The ipset bug I linked earlier in the > thread was an example of that. The userspace is useless without the > kernel code, but there is nothing to stop the user patching it into > their kernel and not having it as a module at all (as is the case on a > couple of my work boxes, which is why the bug got filed). Ok, fair enough. However, in that instance, ipset is a userspace dependency, I was talking about kernel modules that have no userspace dependencies. I suppose there could be a case where someone is trying to custom build a userspace tool that isn't in portage yet, but I still think it might cause confusion to allow USE="modules" on kernel modules (without any dependencies) that then install nothing. I'm wondering which will cause more bugs to be filed? Mike 5:) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkqbHEEACgkQu7rWomwgFXrEpQCeIMWofCtvwHKJoZsb3/qUyLcP tTUAoIb3Sr645x6NY82LXK6i/3g75NF5 =uaOB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
