On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:16:13PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> - Does the package _build_ kernel modules?
> Yes: .config is required.
> No: .config is NOT required. All options must have '~' prefix.
> - Does the package use the options specified _during_ src_configure,
> src_compile, sr
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 11:02:18PM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> > The ONLY time that kernel config checks are fatal is when you're
>> > building kernel modules, and the module will fail to compile unless
>> > there is a .config and sui
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 11:02:18PM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > The ONLY time that kernel config checks are fatal is when you're
> > building kernel modules, and the module will fail to compile unless
> > there is a .config and suitable options set.
> And that is bad anyway, because it doesn't
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 04:11:42PM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> >
>> > It is good that we warn users about this when they install the package,
>> > but I don't think the ebuild sh
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 04:11:42PM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > It is good that we warn users about this when they install the package,
> > but I don't think the ebuild should die.
>
> I've always found ebuilds dying at kernel config
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:59:14PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> check_extra_config requires a configured kernel
> (/usr/src/linux/.config), while I think it should also be satisfied by
> /proc/config.gz (i.e. just a way to verify the config, not necessarily
> kernel built locally).
>
> An e
pkg_setup() is shared between binpkgs and srcpkgs, and often it ends
up containing stuff that should be rather placed into
src_{prepare,configure,whatever}.
--
Fabio Erculiani
http://lxnay.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/11/11 11:11 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> It is good that we warn users about this when they install the package,
>> but I don't think the ebuild should die.
>
> I've always found ebuil
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> It is good that we warn users about this when they install the package,
> but I don't think the ebuild should die.
I've always found ebuilds dying at kernel config checks really annoying.
Checking kernel features at build time (if we die) is
On 11/4/2011 8:59 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> Thoughts?
>
Shouldn't chromium be dealing with this at run-time where it actually
matters? This would be better than doing it in the ebuild where we can
only do it at build and/or install-time.
It is good that we warn users about this when they
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> The running kernel is really irrelevant for those of us that build binpkgs.
> /usr/src/linux is "more correct" in the case of binpkgs and most upgrade
> scenarios where you don't reboot for a new kernel immediately.
>
Also, for out-of-kernel
On 11/04/11 13:59, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
check_extra_config requires a configured kernel
(/usr/src/linux/.config), while I think it should also be satisfied by
/proc/config.gz (i.e. just a way to verify the config, not necessarily
kernel built locally).
The running kernel is really irreleva
Anything using /proc/config.gz is broken.
For the following reasons:
1) could be not available (CONFIG not enabled)
2) doesn't reflect the kernel you're compiling against (chrooted env,
multiple kernels on the system, etc)
--
Fabio Erculiani
check_extra_config requires a configured kernel
(/usr/src/linux/.config), while I think it should also be satisfied by
/proc/config.gz (i.e. just a way to verify the config, not necessarily
kernel built locally).
An example use case is www-client/chromium, which makes sure the kernel
will support
14 matches
Mail list logo
