|| ||Michael Orlitzky <michael-AT-orlitzky.com> |
|| ||gentoo-dev-AT-lists.gentoo.org |
|| ||Re: Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS
fatal by default |
|| ||Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:22:10 -0500 (4 days, 20 hours, 32 minutes ago)|
|| ||Article, Thread
On 01/24/2013 08:39 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Now I've chosen to set that using package.env so it applies only to glibc,
> but I imagine many users have it set in their make.conf, because a lot of
> packages use it, and they were forced to set it for one or another at
> some point.
Using package.env is preferable, since it basically exists in lieu of
prefixing every environment variable with $PN. But I don't particularly
care about the details. I was just curious if there are real cases where
the config check would do harm.
If there's no downside (i.e. no one will notice, except the people whose
machines would be broken), then the whole debate is stupid.
> Thus, adding the package name to enforce per-package
> I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING seems a good idea.
> Or perhaps use the usual I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING var, but instead of just
> checking that it's set, check that it's set to the specific package name.
> Meanwhile, my vote is for a NON-FATAL pkg_pretend warning. That gets run
> at the beginning when people are still likely to be watching, so should
> be good enough. Beyond that, gentoo can't keep the obtuse from ignoring
> the warnings, so if it breaks they get to keep the pieces, and RESOLVED/
> READTHEWARNINGS to any resulting bugs.
They're not warnings, they're "we just broke your system, hope you
weren't doing anything tonight!" A boulder with WARNING: FALLING ROCKS
spray-painted on the bottom.
Better to spare the innocents, and for the people who set
I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING=y in make.conf, we can create
to post comments)