On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 09:26 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 14:17 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > > Quoting Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I can only think of a couple of solution: > > > > > > - Remove these unnecessary checks completely: Follow the example of all > > > other distributions and do not depend on anything kernel-ish for such > > > packages. A recompilation of the kernel with different options can > > > easily cause what the checks are trying to avoid anyway. > > > > > > - Make the checks in linux-info non-fatal. I.e., don't die but issue > > > warnings instead. That's the *least* that I'd be happy with. > > > > > > What do you people think the proper solution is? > > > > In my opinion, the way it is currently done (require those options which are > > required for the package to function correctly) is the right way to do it. > > > > Just because other distributions do it differently doesn't justify us > > changing. > > I've seen and recieved various reports of positive feedback about the way we > > handle this. > > > > The only real argument is that it makes it difficult for people who cross > > compile packages for use on other systems only, in which case it might make > > sense for the possibility to override the behaviour. > > Cross-compiling, embedded systems, and release-building all suffer from > this. >
I cannot remember .. does release-building (iow catalyst) set ROOT ? If so, maybe just make it error if root is not set, as most if not all cross compiling of such things (not talking toolchain) is done with ROOT set as far I know. -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
