On 8/5/22 22:12, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 7:15 PM Ionen Wolkens <io...@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 06:47:42PM -0400, Mike Pagano wrote:
Based upon code from check-reqs.eclass by Andreas Sturmlechner
Provide support for users who requested the ability to skip
CONFIG_* checks. (e.g. from within a chroot for testing purposes)
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/862315
Signed-off-by: Mike Pagano <mpag...@gentoo.org>
---
eclass/linux-info.eclass | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/eclass/linux-info.eclass b/eclass/linux-info.eclass
index 7e130062a..59e86490f 100644
--- a/eclass/linux-info.eclass
+++ b/eclass/linux-info.eclass
@@ -29,6 +29,15 @@
# A Couple of env vars are available to effect usage of this eclass
# These are as follows:
+
+# @ECLASS_VARIABLE: CHECKCONFIG_DONOTHING
+# @USER_VARIABLE
+# @DEFAULT_UNSET
+# @DESCRIPTION:
+# Do not error out in check_extra_config if CONFIG settings are not met.
+# This is a user flag and should under _no circumstances_ be set in the ebuild.
+[[ -n ${I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING} ]] && CHECKCONFIG_DONOTHING=1
So this enables it if I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING is set?
Generally I feel giving more purposes to that variable is a bad idea.
What starts out as "don't bother me about size/ram checks" ignores
a lot of other things that may be not be expected.
I agree. Please avoid abusing the I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING variable any further.
Baldino
I actually agree. I was following the pattern that did not receive any
complaints on the mailing list when presented for the other eclass indicated.
It's a vague variable and this adds more random functionality when set.
I'll change this appropriately and submit something later today.
Thanks for thee review.
Mike
--
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
Gentoo Sources - Lead
E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 52CC A0B0 F631 0B17 0142 F83F 92A6 DBEC 81F2 B137
Public Key :
http://http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x92A6DBEC81F2B137&op=index
