Good discussion. Stupid question - what is the Ubuntu sauce? I'll ask the
kernel dudes in their meeting in two minutes...
Dave
On 15 Nov 2010, at 15:53, John Rigby wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
