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
Steps to Reproduce:
1. make menuconfig
2. -> General setup
3. -> System V IPC
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 126.96.36.199p1
ccache version 2.3 [enabled]
CFLAGS="-march=pentium3 -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -fstack-protector"
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
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/gconf /etc/terminfo /etc/env.d"
CXXFLAGS="-march=pentium3 -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -fstack-protector"
FEATURES="autoaddcvs ccache sandbox sfperms strict userpriv usersandbox"
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 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.
I agree with Donny, marking this bug as wontfix.