On 03/02/2013 13:24, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> I may be suffering from faulty wetRAM, but I'm sure I've seen ebuilds
>>> > > bail because f incorrect kernel configuration in the past.
>>> > >
>>> > >  
>> > Just because the ebuild does it, does not mean it's correct to do it.
> Nor does it make it wrong. I'm all for Gentoo allowing you to shoot
> yourself in the foot, I just think it's a good idea to let you know the
> gun is pointing at your foot before you pull the trigger. Updating udev
> without the correct kernel options WILL break the currently running
> system. 

And that is the problem.

WHICH kernel config and for WHICH kernel? The ebuild has no way of
knowing and there is no sane mechanism for the user to indicate which
one the ebuild should use.

Any solution you come up with is going to be fraught with difficulties.
Remember that kernel ebuilds are unique, it is the one packages where
nothing is built or put into a runnable state, the ebuild only unpacks
the tarball. So the ebuild cannot know what the config is going to be,
it cannot know what kernel is going to run, it cannot fix any flag
errors it finds, it cannot even know where your sources are or even if
you have a kernel package installed at all. You quite possibly do not
have a /boot/.config and you might not have enabled /proc/config.gz.

See how deep this goes?

In short, there is absolutely no sane approach the ebuild could follow
to protect you from yourself. Yes, it might help YOU in YOUR particular
setup, whilst infuriating others who do it differently.

Think it through logically, the only thing you are left with that works
is to inform the user of what is found and suggest approaches to take.
If you are going to go that route, you might as well print a generic
message that applies to all, backed up with a news item.

I'm not saying the ebuild should not help you out, I'm saying that
ebuild cannot help you sanely, and the existing ebuilds that get it very
wrong whilst trying to be helpful re kernel configs simply prove the point.

-- 
alan.mckin...@gmail.com



Reply via email to