configs should have never gotten into genkernel in the first place. it's each kernel pkg (or even version) that owns a valid config of itself. I am part of genkernel@ but I have no will nor time to fix it. And when I have, I'd rather work on genkernel-next, that comes with a much more readable initramfs code (that I managed to rewrite myself).
Wiping the whole config files has been on my agenda for very long time already. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Ben Kohler <bkoh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> As nice at it sounds to just DROP these configs, that option is not really >> feasible considering the way we currently use genkernel in our handbook. >> Relying on the kernel's own defconfig, "genkernel all" will NOT produce the >> same mostly-usable-on-any-hardware result that we now rely on. > > Considering that the configs are more generically useful than > genkernel, having them separately maintained sort-of makes sense. > Then genkernel is a kernel build/install/initramfs tool, not a config > management tool. > > I'd stick them someplace where any dev can get to them, and separate > them from the genkernel functional code base. > > As far as who takes care of them goes - I suggest that this stuff > comes out of the devmanual unless somebody steps up to take care of > them. Those who take care of them become those who want to keep them > around. You can't toss out a tool and ask for it to be a > recommendation but point to others that you think need to maintain its > configuration. > > Rich > -- Fabio Erculiani
