On the other hand, though - creating this dependency *will* break workflows
and cause many unexpected side-effects, as it broke mine last month: I have
linux-headers-cloud-amd64 installed; when this package hit BPO, it brought
in linux-image-cloud-amd64, which grub then tracked as the most recent
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 16:52, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 03:59:25PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Let's look at this the other way around: if there was no dependency, in
> > what scenario would things break and how?
>
> - linux-headers-bla and linux-image-bla are installed
Please explain. I am really sorry to be dragging this discussion out, but I
honestly think there is some information I'm missing. Please tell me what I
am missing here? ** PLEASE ** read it before replying; I am honestly not
trying to undermine you, just point out a serious problem with the
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 05:38:01PM +0100, Colm Buckley wrote:
> ... but the proposed dependency wouldn't address that, right?
Actually it does. It ties all packages together with = dependencies.
For an upgrade, all packages need to be unpacked first and only then the
maintainer scripts can run.
Bastian wrote:
> Luca wrote:
>> Let's look at this the other way around: if there was no dependency, in
>> what scenario would things break and how?
> - linux-headers-bla and linux-image-bla are installed
> - linux-image-bla is uipgraded
> - no modules will be built, because the matching headers
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 03:59:25PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Let's look at this the other way around: if there was no dependency, in
> what scenario would things break and how?
- linux-headers-bla and linux-image-bla are installed
- linux-image-bla is uipgraded
- no modules will be built,
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 08:27:39 +0200 Bastian Blank
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 09:25:40PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Why do dkms modules need the image installed to be built? At the
very
> > least they didn't use to, the headers were enough last time I had
to
> > deal with that stuff for
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 09:25:40PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Why do dkms modules need the image installed to be built? At the very
> least they didn't use to, the headers were enough last time I had to
> deal with that stuff for the nvidia drivers
dkms is used to build modules for the kernel
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 21:49, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> Control: tags -1 wontfix
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:38:12PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF case
> > >
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 wontfix
Bug #1064976 [linux-headers-amd64] linux-headers-6.6.13+bpo-amd64 incorrectly
depends on the corresponding linux-image-amd64 package
Added tag(s) wontfix.
--
1064976: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064976
Debian Bug Tracking
Control: tags -1 wontfix
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:38:12PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF case
> > should be covered.
As said, this dependency is to make sure kernel
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:54:49 +0100 Bastian Blank
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:28:12AM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > But we where talking about kernel modules.
> > There are kernel modules using BPF stuff? Never seen one, do you
have
> > an example?
>
> No idea, but they get linked BTF
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:28:12AM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > But we where talking about kernel modules.
> There are kernel modules using BPF stuff? Never seen one, do you have
> an example?
No idea, but they get linked BTF information, so you could use them.
Bastian
--
Those who hate and
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:32, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:40:07AM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Yes precisely, the bpf program source can just include vmlinux.h and it
> > should build and run as expected.
>
> But we where talking about kernel modules.
>
> Bastian
There
On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:40:07AM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Yes precisely, the bpf program source can just include vmlinux.h and it
> should build and run as expected.
But we where talking about kernel modules.
Bastian
--
Vulcans never bluff.
-- Spock, "The Doomsday
As per the discussion in
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1005 - once
vmlinux.h is included with linux-headers, the warning about cmd_btf_ko etc.
should be harmless, as that file should already be available (ie: there's
no need to generate it again as part of kernel
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:23:05 + Colm Buckley
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:38:12 +0100 Bastian Blank
wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF
case
> > > should be covered.
> >
> > The
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:38:12 +0100 Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF case
> > should be covered.
>
> The relevant code in Linux is:
>
> | quiet_cmd_btf_ko = BTF [M] $@
> |
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF case
> should be covered.
The relevant code in Linux is:
| quiet_cmd_btf_ko = BTF [M] $@
| cmd_btf_ko = \
|
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:25:27 +0100 Bastian Blank
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:03:11AM +, Colm Buckley wrote:
> > Why was this never the case before? And can you be more precise
about what
> > "stuff" is missing? Is there a previous bug report I can reference?
>
> It complains loudly
> The build wants the image available (it does not really fail without, but
lacks stuff) and we need some dependency to keep image and headers in sync
for people using dkms.
To be honest, "it does not really fail without, but lacks stuff" seems like
the use case that "Recommends:" (or even
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:03:11AM +, Colm Buckley wrote:
> Why was this never the case before? And can you be more precise about what
> "stuff" is missing? Is there a previous bug report I can reference?
It complains loudly about BTF.
> DKMS should handle its own dependencies, I'd have
Why was this never the case before? And can you be more precise about what
"stuff" is missing? Is there a previous bug report I can reference?
DKMS should handle its own dependencies, I'd have thought - I see a clear
use case for installing header files without the corresponding images.
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 wontfix
Bug #1064976 [linux-headers-amd64] linux-headers-6.6.13+bpo-amd64 incorrectly
depends on the corresponding linux-image-amd64 package
Added tag(s) wontfix.
--
1064976: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064976
Debian Bug Tracking
Control: tags -1 wontfix
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 05:19:39PM +, Colm Buckley wrote:
> The linux-headers packages for kernel version 6.6 seem to depend on the
> corresponding
> linux-image packages, but I believe that this should not be the case (and was
> not the
> case in previous
Some previous versions, for contrast:
% apt-cache depends linux-headers-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64
linux-headers-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64
Depends: linux-headers-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-common
Depends: linux-kbuild-6.5.0-0.deb12.4
Depends: linux-compiler-gcc-12-x86
% apt-cache depends
Package: linux-headers-6.6.13+bpo-amd64
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: c...@tuatha.org
Dear Maintainer,
The linux-headers packages for kernel version 6.6 seem to depend on the
corresponding
linux-image packages, but I believe that this should not be the case (and was
not the
case in previous
27 matches
Mail list logo
