As the forumthread discusses, System V IPC must be comiled into the kernel to get apache running. Since Apache is a much more common app to run than DOSEMU, it should be mentioned in this help text. Today the help text states: " ... It is generally considered to be a good thing, and some programs won't run unless you say Y here. In particular, if you want to run the DOS emulator dosemu under Linux (read the DOSEMU-HOWTO, available from <http://www.tldp.org/docs.html#howto>), you'll need to say Y here. " i.e. the bug is that more of those programs dependig on System V IPC should be mentioned in the help text Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. make menuconfig 2. -> General setup 3. -> System V IPC 4. <help> Expected Results: Mentioned the applications, at least the widely used ones such as Apache, that seemingly depend on this My Apache: apache-2.0.48-r1 My emerge info: Portage 2.0.50-r1 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r9, 2.6.3-gentoo-r1) ================================================================= System uname: 2.6.3-gentoo-r1 i686 Pentium III (Coppermine) Gentoo Base System version 1.4.3.13p1 ccache version 2.3 [enabled] Autoconf: sys-devel/autoconf-2.58-r1 Automake: sys-devel/automake-1.7.7 ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" AUTOCLEAN="yes" CFLAGS="-march=pentium3 -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -fstack-protector" CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" COMPILER="gcc3" CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xkb /usr/kde/2/share/config /usr/kde/3.2/share/config /usr/kde/3/share/config /usr/share/config /var/qmail/control" CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/gconf /etc/terminfo /etc/env.d" CXXFLAGS="-march=pentium3 -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -fstack-protector" DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles" FEATURES="autoaddcvs ccache sandbox sfperms strict userpriv usersandbox" GENTOO_MIRRORS="http://gentoo.linux.no/ ftp://gentoo.linux.no/pub/gentoo/ ftp://ftp.uninett.no/pub/linux/gentoo" MAKEOPTS="-j2" PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages" PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/var/tmp" PORTDIR="/usr/portage" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="" SYNC="rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage" USE="X aalib acpi apm arts avi berkdb crypt cups encode esd foomaticdb gdbm gif gpm gtk gtk2 imlib java jpeg libg++ libwww mad mikmod motif mpeg mysql ncurses nls oggvorbis opengl oss pam pcmcia pdflib perl png python quicktime readline ruby sdl slang spell ssl svga tcltk tcpd truetype x86 xml2 xmms xv zlib"
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous it may be, but the fact still remains that real users are having real problems with this (as the forum-thread shows). Documentation is just as much a part of any software system as the code, and therefore poor documentation is poor software. Although clearly not a gentoo bug, the official gentoo docs state errors will be sent upstream to the correct reciever. By that, I rest my case, ridiculous or not :-)
> Ridiculous it may be, but the fact still remains > that real users are having real problems with > this (as the forum-thread shows). And they can be given help _on_ the forum. Why you are submitting a bug into the Gentoo bug tracking system for this is well beyond me. How much time do you think the developers who contribute to this project have anyway? Maintaining the text for a single configurable option in the kernel? And that deserved a bug in the Gentoo bug system how exactly? > Documentation is just as much a part of any software > system as the code, and therefore poor documentation > is poor software. You're reaching. I dont know who told you that every bug submitted into the Gentoo bug tracking system would be categorically adopted as a legitimate issue and worked on, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. Some things are just not "worth it". Some things have to be denied with a "Sorry, I don't think this is a good idea". The alternative is that every single issue/idea/"bug" submitted into the Gentoo bug tracking system gets accepted/included, which is, well, ridiculous. > Although clearly not a gentoo bug, Then _why_ are you subitting this? You are aware, are you not, that each and every bug submitted into this system has to be looked at by _somebody_. It has to be processed sooner or later. If you wanted to effect the greatest positive resolution possible, I suggest it would have been much more efficient to write a patch and submit it to LKML. I mean you didnt even attach a patch to this "bug"! You simply dumped your gripe in here and that was it! Please! > the official gentoo docs state errors will be sent > upstream to the correct reciever. Errors? In what way does the configure help text not containing the word "Apache" qualify as an error? My opinion is that your "bug" is not worth it. I usually don't respond at all to things of this nature but for some reason this one caught my eye and I've included my thoughts in here. Go figure. Your opinion is valued, respected and heard. Unfortunately I really think you should have at least created a patch and sent it somewhere else. Regards.
I agree with Donny, marking this bug as wontfix.
Closing.
