Re: [arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status

[Sébastien Luttringer]

On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 21:54 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> On 2017-05-06 08:28, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> > On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> > > On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > > > Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
> > > 
> > > I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
> > > for having 4.11 in [testing].
> > > 
> > > Bartłomiej
> > 
> > I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want
> > people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop
> > support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > Pierre
> > 
> 
> There is a difference between intentional breakage caused by our
> laziness (we could fix the code, but we did not) and some proprietary
> blob that we don't control. The bug is the driver itself.
> 
> Bartłomiej

We should continue to make no difference between proprietary softwares and not
in our packaging quality as long as they are in our official repositories.

I didn't read a reason to rush on this before getting more feedback from
upstreams. Not to mention that the fix may finally land into the kernel
package, which is pretty open.

Cheers,


-- 
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status

[Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public]

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:04:03PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 05/05/17 at 06:58am, Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public <
> > arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is
> > > legal.
> > > http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
> > 
> > 
> > We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That
> > at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).
> 
> There is a patch for 4.12 to undo the change from GregKH. [1]
> 
> [1] 
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d557d1b58b3546bab2c5bc2d624c5709840e6b10.patch
> 
> -- 
> Jelle van der Waa

That patch is in the queue for 4.11.1 too, so once 4.11.1 lands the
nvidia driver should build as expected. I'm going to test later today if
everything builds fine with this patch applied.

-- 
Ike


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status

[Jelle van der Waa]

On 05/05/17 at 06:58am, Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public <
> arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote:
> 
> > Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is
> > legal.
> > http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
> 
> 
> We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That
> at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).

There is a patch for 4.12 to undo the change from GregKH. [1]

[1] 
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d557d1b58b3546bab2c5bc2d624c5709840e6b10.patch

-- 
Jelle van der Waa


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

On 2017-05-06 08:28, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
>> On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>> Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
>>
>> I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
>> for having 4.11 in [testing].
>>
>> Bartłomiej
>
> I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want
> people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop
> support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Pierre
>

There is a difference between intentional breakage caused by our
laziness (we could fix the code, but we did not) and some proprietary
blob that we don't control. The bug is the driver itself.

Bartłomiej

Re: [arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status

[Massimiliano Torromeo via arch-dev-public]

Il giorno ven 5 mag 2017 alle ore 08:29 Tobias Powalowski via
arch-dev-public  ha scritto:

> Broken community modules:
> - r8169
>

I added a patch in trunk for r8168.

-- 
Massimiliano Torromeo

Re: [arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status

[Pierre Schmitz]

On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:

On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:

Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].


I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
for having 4.11 in [testing].

Bartłomiej


I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want 
people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop 
support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion.


Greetings,

Pierre

--
Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com

Re: [arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].

I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1
for having 4.11 in [testing].

Bartłomiej

Re: [arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status

[Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public]

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public <
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote:

> Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is
> legal.
> http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935


We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That
at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).


> - vhba-module
>

Added a patch to trunk.


> Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
>

Since I have an Optimus laptop, I'm interested in keeping the nvidia driver
functional...