On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Loïc Minier <loic.min...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Folks, I think this thread is circling a bit back to itself, perhaps
> summarizing where we stand and what problems we're trying to solve
> would help?
>
>
> * Linaro integrates its kernel tree into Ubuntu for two reasons:
> - because Linaro uses Ubuntu as a base to build its own derived
> images (out of Ubuntu)
> - because Linaro wants its kernel shipped/available in distributions
> such as Ubuntu/MeeGo/whatever for mutual benefit of the distro and
> of Linaro. For instance, Ubuntu users could install this kernel
> instead of the official Ubuntu one, or Ubuntu could build images
> from this kernel (as proposed in the original email).
>
> * there are currently the following *three* trees for the Ubuntu Linaro
> kernel packages to happen (for maverick):
> - git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-2.6.35.git -- upstreamish
> tree maintained by Nicolas, based on upstream git tree with patches
> relevant to Linaro merged in; the Linaro Kernel
> - git://git.linaro.org/ubuntu/linux-linaro.git -- Ubuntu-ish tree
> for the linux-linaro source package in Ubuntu or in Linaro PPAs
> maintained by jcrigby, based on the Linaro Kernel tree with
> packaging and the Ubuntu stuff ("Sauce") merged in
> - git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-maverick.git linaro branch --
> pretty much the same as jcrigby's tree maintained by the Ubuntu
> kernel team; it's mostly a copy of jcrigby's tree when it gets
> uploaded to Ubuntu, unless the Ubuntu kernel team has to do any
> minor adjustments/fixups before upload; it exists only because
> jcrigby can't upload and because /ubuntu is restricted to the
> official Ubuntu Kernel Team
>
> So what problems / questions are we trying to solve?
> * security support: Linaro isn't in the business of long-term security
> support of its trees, however I understand that it wouldn't be a big
> problem to simply add the *Ubuntu* linux-linaro package and the
> kernel.ubuntu.com git tree to the list of packages/trees which get
> security updates from the Ubuntu Security Team, especially if the
> Ubuntu ARM Team moves to this package/tree as their base for some
> images
> * for Linaro, the Ubuntu Sauce stuff doesn't add any much value and is
> a distraction (causes more merge efforts, might cause extra bugs
> etc.)
>
>
> Is this a fair summary? Did I miss anything?
>
>
> I am not sure I understand the point of contention with the Ubuntu
> Sauce stuff; is it causing problems to Linaro right now?
> Linaro GCC is released in source form and then integrated in the
> Ubuntu gcc-4.x packages which have tons of patches added on top; this
> is not ideal for Linaro Toolchain WG, but it's part of the process to
> check whether bugs do apply to the pristine Linaro source, just like
> you need to test a pristine upstream GCC or Linux when reporting bugs
> upstream.
>
> There are definitely things we could do to improve the Ubuntu Sauce:
> * split this stuff more; e.g.:
> - packaging goes in one tree (I think this is already split out?)
> - patches which come from upstream or were acked upstream go into
> another tree
> - patches which are Ubuntu specific such as AUFS go into one or
> multiple separate trees
> * we could review the current sauce stuff and only merge in features
> which are really needed for Linaro images and Ubuntu ARM images; aufs
> doesn't seem to be needed anymore for instance? Maybe this makes
> things more complex for little gain though
> * we could stop merging patches from upstream from Ubuntu, and have
> them flow in via Linaro instead; again, maybe this makes things more
> complex for little gain
>
>
> My opinion is that the current approach is okay modulo two things:
> - we should drop one of the two packaging trees; the
> linaro / jcrigby versus kernel.ubuntu.com split is useless
> - we could provide pristine kernel builds, built from the Linaro Kernel
> directly and without any Ubuntu Sauce
> . in fact these exist already, they just aren't tested and they use a
> random config: http://hudson.dooz.org/
> . if we want Linaro Kernel .debs instead of standalone zImage/uImage,
> we could do something like
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/MainlineBuilds
>
>
> Proposed plan:
> * Oliver/Ricardo to confirm with Ubuntu Security Team whether it's ok
> to base Ubuntu ARM images on linux-linaro tree as constructed
> currently
I can't speak for the Ubuntu ARM folks but I believe their main concern was if
I stopped including Ubuntu Sauce.
> * John to request upload permissions for linux-linaro only and to
> request commit rights to ubuntu/ubuntu-$release.git for the linaro
> branch only
The plan proposed at UDS was for Steve Langasek to take over the roll of
linux-linaro upload sponsor. He would replace Tim G in this role. Perhaps
we could try this for one cycle then consider the idea of me uploading
after that.
> * if someone cares about limiting the Ubuntu Sauce which goes into the
> linux-linaro Ubuntu package which goes into Linaro images, then that
> someone ought to start discussion on splitting and limiting the Sauce
> which goes into the linaro branch with the Ubuntu Kernel Team; I
> don't think this fundamentally holds up anything though
The easiest way to include Ubuntu Sauce is to include all of it. It rarely
causes merge conflicts and I can't think of an instance where it has
caused breakage for linux-linaro so I suggest we just keep including it all.
To include a subset would require someone to decide what subset and
that would be extra work.
> * if someone cares about providing better vanilla Linaro Kernel builds,
> e.g. .debs, then that someone ought to start some spec on providing +
> testing these builds -- I'm happy to help here :-)
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Loïc Minier
>
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-dev mailing list
> linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
>
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
