Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
tor 2009-07-09 klockan 15:47 +0100 skrev Martin Dengler: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 01:43:31PM -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote: > > > > I've spent some time merging the XO-1 and XO-1.5 kernels into a new > > branch and made some tweaks to the in-kernel RPM build scripts. Cool. I updated http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5#kernel accordingly. > Very cool, thanks. I've built new kernel rpms to a yum repo: > http://dev.laptop.org/~mdengler/xo-1 Added to the wiki, hope you don't mind. It might be a good idea to call these kernels "kernel-xo1" and "kernel-xo15", the same way Fedora has "kernel" and "kernel-PAE". That way yum will do the right thing with them. /abo ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 21:06 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > "That's what users are for!" -- not all those "users" have the > resources to compile (then test) new builds/kernels themselves. I didn't suggest that users would compile anything. I simply pointed out that our usual early-development practice does not involve developers testing a build before making it available to testers. Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
>> the problem is that I'd want to test the build before pushing, >> and I'd want to be able to distribute what I test. > > Also I wouldn't worry about testing before publishing. We don't do it > for XO-1.5 builds, never did it for joyride, etc. That's what users are > for! I'm someone who doesn't mind booting new builds to see what they would/would_not do. But please - I'd like *something* I can boot. As far as I can tell, the most recent build meant for an XO-1 was 'devxo-1' on 6/16/09. [Strawberry (6/22/09) was available as a "general applicability" .iso -- but on my XO-1 it had less capability than 'devxo-1' !] And I don't have any XO-1.5 motherboard to "test" XO-1.5 builds on. "That's what users are for!" -- not all those "users" have the resources to compile (then test) new builds/kernels themselves. mikus ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 12:07 +0100, Martin Dengler wrote: > One also needs good bandwidth between the build machine and download > site, which is all I'm lacking now or I'd be happy to do it...the > problem is that I'd want to test the build before pushing, and I'd > want to be able to distribute what I test. I'm sure we could get you a machine at OLPC to do that. It would probably make sense to do it from the same one as XO-1.5 builds. Also I wouldn't worry about testing before publishing. We don't do it for XO-1.5 builds, never did it for joyride, etc. That's what users are for! Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
>> > I discussed at Fudcon with Sebastian, Scott etc about resurrecting the >> > Sugar Spin in Fedora which would allow us to have automated builds and >> > make use of the new autoqa stuff. I can assist in this stuff as well >> > if you like although at the moment I don't know how the laptop.org >> > build stuff works or have access. >> >> I'd say that a "Sugar spin" isn't what you want here -- a Sugar spin >> should aim to be generic and be useful for more widespread testing of >> Sugar. > > From discussing with Peter last week, you're both talking about the > same thing (different words, etc.). > >> The task at hand is simply syncing all changes from xo-1.5 to xo-1 >> on a continual basis, running "make foo.img", publishing foo.img, >> and trying to act on user feedback as much as possible. > > One also needs good bandwidth between the build machine and download > site, which is all I'm lacking now or I'd be happy to do it...the > problem is that I'd want to test the build before pushing, and I'd > want to be able to distribute what I test. I have a server in france with a 100 meg link which I'm happy to run it on. Or can do so on dev.laptop.org if there's a procedure to get an account. >> (right now you will have to build and set up your own kernel repo for >> XO-1, but hopefully chris will have that automated soon: >> http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9402) > > One could also use http://dev.laptop.org/~mdengler/xo-1 > >> Daniel > > Martin Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:22:45AM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:12 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > I discussed at Fudcon with Sebastian, Scott etc about resurrecting the > > Sugar Spin in Fedora which would allow us to have automated builds and > > make use of the new autoqa stuff. I can assist in this stuff as well > > if you like although at the moment I don't know how the laptop.org > > build stuff works or have access. > > I'd say that a "Sugar spin" isn't what you want here -- a Sugar spin > should aim to be generic and be useful for more widespread testing of > Sugar. From discussing with Peter last week, you're both talking about the same thing (different words, etc.). > The task at hand is simply syncing all changes from xo-1.5 to xo-1 > on a continual basis, running "make foo.img", publishing foo.img, > and trying to act on user feedback as much as possible. One also needs good bandwidth between the build machine and download site, which is all I'm lacking now or I'd be happy to do it...the problem is that I'd want to test the build before pushing, and I'd want to be able to distribute what I test. > (right now you will have to build and set up your own kernel repo for > XO-1, but hopefully chris will have that automated soon: > http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9402) One could also use http://dev.laptop.org/~mdengler/xo-1 > Daniel Martin pgpoX0Uohpjhr.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 11:12 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > I discussed at Fudcon with Sebastian, Scott etc about resurrecting the > Sugar Spin in Fedora which would allow us to have automated builds and > make use of the new autoqa stuff. I can assist in this stuff as well > if you like although at the moment I don't know how the laptop.org > build stuff works or have access. I'd say that a "Sugar spin" isn't what you want here -- a Sugar spin should aim to be generic and be useful for more widespread testing of Sugar. For the XO, at this point, we still need special customization, including the kernel, some out-of-tree deployment technologies, etc. We also want it as slim as possible, and just with a few lines in a kickstart file you can do a lot better than a standard fedora install. The builds we're doing are just kickstart wrapped in a makefile and another script to turn a .iso into an appropriate image format. All the code is here: http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/fedora-xo/ The xo-1.5 branch is where we're working. xo-1 is where I did a backport a few weeks ago. master is unused. The task at hand is simply syncing all changes from xo-1.5 to xo-1 on a continual basis, running "make foo.img", publishing foo.img, and trying to act on user feedback as much as possible. (right now you will have to build and set up your own kernel repo for XO-1, but hopefully chris will have that automated soon: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9402) Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
>> > plus, no immediate release for the >> > XO-1 is even on the drawing board. >> >> D'oh! I would have thought OLPC deployments would want one software >> release for XO-1 and XO-1.5. Is a single image simply impossible for >> technical reasons -- different firmware, different NAND flash >> capacity, different file systems? > > Yes, impossible. > >> I understand OLPC has extremely limited resources. Maybe you could >> provide the raw materials for builds together with scripts that let >> more expert users turn them into what they need. Given the XO-1.5 >> packages, an XO-1 kernel, the geode driver, the build scripts and a >> ton more l33t skillz would I be able to make my own XO-1 image? > > Everything is in the fedora-xo git repository in the xo-1.5 branch. I > recently backported all of my XO-1.5 work to XO-1 (the kickstart changes > really are only the handful that you mention) and it only took about an > hour. > > I am looking to find some community members to do this as an ongoing > process and publish the resultant builds. Adam found a couple of > interested people but they have not yet made an appearance. I discussed at Fudcon with Sebastian, Scott etc about resurrecting the Sugar Spin in Fedora which would allow us to have automated builds and make use of the new autoqa stuff. I can assist in this stuff as well if you like although at the moment I don't know how the laptop.org build stuff works or have access. Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 19:13 -0700, S Page wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > > > plus, no immediate release for the > > XO-1 is even on the drawing board. > > D'oh! I would have thought OLPC deployments would want one software > release for XO-1 and XO-1.5. Is a single image simply impossible for > technical reasons -- different firmware, different NAND flash > capacity, different file systems? Yes, impossible. > I understand OLPC has extremely limited resources. Maybe you could > provide the raw materials for builds together with scripts that let > more expert users turn them into what they need. Given the XO-1.5 > packages, an XO-1 kernel, the geode driver, the build scripts and a > ton more l33t skillz would I be able to make my own XO-1 image? Everything is in the fedora-xo git repository in the xo-1.5 branch. I recently backported all of my XO-1.5 work to XO-1 (the kickstart changes really are only the handful that you mention) and it only took about an hour. I am looking to find some community members to do this as an ongoing process and publish the resultant builds. Adam found a couple of interested people but they have not yet made an appearance. Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Paul Fox wrote: > da...@lang.hm wrote: > > > > part of the question is going to be what modules need to be installed. > > > > a generic fedora system installs modules for everything, but each module > > wastes a partial page of ram, which can add up on a low memory system. > > > > you may want to include every USB driver as a module, or it may be worth > > trimming down the list of modules with a method to add others as needed. > > > > deepak and i were just talking about this yesterday. we have it > noted in a trac ticket that while we'd like to constrain the size > of the default install, we'd like to make available a more > complete set of modules that represent easily pluggable add-on > devices (primarily USB devices: serial, bluetooth, tablets, > etc). one could picture an add-on RPM or "extra-modules". > unfortunately, no other (?) distro does this, so there's no > convenient packaging format to piggy-back on. the good news is that this should just be a matter of taking the files and putting them in different packages. there isn't any master list that you need to update to list what modules you have (unless you want to get fancy, you can leave the full list with the kernel, but just not put all of them on the filesystem) David Lang ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > plus, no immediate release for the > XO-1 is even on the drawing board. D'oh! I would have thought OLPC deployments would want one software release for XO-1 and XO-1.5. Is a single image simply impossible for technical reasons -- different firmware, different NAND flash capacity, different file systems? I understand OLPC has extremely limited resources. Maybe you could provide the raw materials for builds together with scripts that let more expert users turn them into what they need. Given the XO-1.5 packages, an XO-1 kernel, the geode driver, the build scripts and a ton more l33t skillz would I be able to make my own XO-1 image? Regards, -- =S Page ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
martin wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > > etc). one could picture an add-on RPM or "extra-modules". > > unfortunately, no other (?) distro does this, so there's no > > convenient packaging format to piggy-back on. > > I think that Ubuntu does split some of the modules in their own rpm, > they package > > linux-ubuntu-modules- for GPL modules > linux-restricted-modules- for 'tainted'/nonfree modules > > of course it's not rpm packaging, and maybe that's what you meant. in fact, i'd forgotten that -- deepak did mention it. it's a slightly different kind of split than we'd want, but a good reference, nonetheless. paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > etc). one could picture an add-on RPM or "extra-modules". > unfortunately, no other (?) distro does this, so there's no > convenient packaging format to piggy-back on. I think that Ubuntu does split some of the modules in their own rpm, they package linux-ubuntu-modules- for GPL modules linux-restricted-modules- for 'tainted'/nonfree modules of course it's not rpm packaging, and maybe that's what you meant. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
da...@lang.hm wrote: > > part of the question is going to be what modules need to be installed. > > a generic fedora system installs modules for everything, but each module > wastes a partial page of ram, which can add up on a low memory system. > > you may want to include every USB driver as a module, or it may be worth > trimming down the list of modules with a method to add others as needed. > deepak and i were just talking about this yesterday. we have it noted in a trac ticket that while we'd like to constrain the size of the default install, we'd like to make available a more complete set of modules that represent easily pluggable add-on devices (primarily USB devices: serial, bluetooth, tablets, etc). one could picture an add-on RPM or "extra-modules". unfortunately, no other (?) distro does this, so there's no convenient packaging format to piggy-back on. paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
john wrote: > > Given that > > we are building the for completely different CPU core, we will need > > different kernel RPMs to make sure our kernel is optimized for the > > given machine. > > Optimization is one thing; functioning is another. > > Fedora *functions* on just about any x86 system you boot it on. A > Fedora kernel with OLPC's patches should also *function* when you boot > that kernel on any x86. Including XO-1 and XO-1.5. i suspect we all agree that this is the right longer term goal, modulo the space and performance constraints on XO-1 that you noted. shorter term, fedora doesn't have many (most?) of our platform-level changes (even for XO-1), so we're constrained to shipping a "custom" kernel. plus, no immediate release for the XO-1 is even on the drawing board. so, while we're trying to keep the kernel differences for the two boards neatly segregated, and hopefully in a way that it can all someday be turned into a runtime decision, it's not a runtime decision right now. paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, John Gilmore wrote: >> Given that >> we are building the for completely different CPU core, we will need >> different kernel RPMs to make sure our kernel is optimized for the >> given machine. > > Optimization is one thing; functioning is another. > > Fedora *functions* on just about any x86 system you boot it on. A > Fedora kernel with OLPC's patches should also *function* when you boot > that kernel on any x86. Including XO-1 and XO-1.5. > > I don't know many people who actually recompile their Fedora kernels > and flip all the hundreds of config switches to "optimize" their > kernel for their hardware. The vast majority just run the stock > kernel, which "optimizes" the human cost of sysadmin, future upgrades, > security patches, etc. > > There was a long debate on the Fedora list about desupporting the > 586 so the stock distro could be compiled for the 686. The problem is > that it breaks *function* for a cheezy optimization of way less than 5% > improvement. > > A tiny number of features (e.g. PAE kernels that use more than 3 GB > of DRAM) require a kernel reconfig/recompile; the rest just happen at > runtime. OLPC's chip and board support should happen at runtime, like > everybody else's. > > With regard to optimization, OLPC is in a tighter position than most > Fedora users, particularly on the XO-1 at 256MB of DRAM. It might be > worth shipping a custom-configured kernel for the XO-1 to save a meg > of RAM (if it actually did save that much). A better but harder > approach would be to fix the stock kernel so it can discard more > portions of itself that aren't used on the running hardware. part of the question is going to be what modules need to be installed. a generic fedora system installs modules for everything, but each module wastes a partial page of ram, which can add up on a low memory system. you may want to include every USB driver as a module, or it may be worth trimming down the list of modules with a method to add others as needed. David Lang > John > > PS: Someone on the kernel list reported that compiling with > -march=atom made his Geode faster than compiling with -march=geode. > The theory that each board's kernel would be faster when recompiled > for Via vs. Geode should be tested. > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:35:50 -0700 John Gilmore wrote: [...] > > With regard to optimization, OLPC is in a tighter position than most > Fedora users, particularly on the XO-1 at 256MB of DRAM. It might be > worth shipping a custom-configured kernel for the XO-1 to save a meg > of RAM (if it actually did save that much). A better but harder > approach would be to fix the stock kernel so it can discard more > portions of itself that aren't used on the running hardware. I suspect you'd be much better off just optimizing memory usage in userspace, as well. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
> Given that > we are building the for completely different CPU core, we will need > different kernel RPMs to make sure our kernel is optimized for the > given machine. Optimization is one thing; functioning is another. Fedora *functions* on just about any x86 system you boot it on. A Fedora kernel with OLPC's patches should also *function* when you boot that kernel on any x86. Including XO-1 and XO-1.5. I don't know many people who actually recompile their Fedora kernels and flip all the hundreds of config switches to "optimize" their kernel for their hardware. The vast majority just run the stock kernel, which "optimizes" the human cost of sysadmin, future upgrades, security patches, etc. There was a long debate on the Fedora list about desupporting the 586 so the stock distro could be compiled for the 686. The problem is that it breaks *function* for a cheezy optimization of way less than 5% improvement. A tiny number of features (e.g. PAE kernels that use more than 3 GB of DRAM) require a kernel reconfig/recompile; the rest just happen at runtime. OLPC's chip and board support should happen at runtime, like everybody else's. With regard to optimization, OLPC is in a tighter position than most Fedora users, particularly on the XO-1 at 256MB of DRAM. It might be worth shipping a custom-configured kernel for the XO-1 to save a meg of RAM (if it actually did save that much). A better but harder approach would be to fix the stock kernel so it can discard more portions of itself that aren't used on the running hardware. John PS: Someone on the kernel list reported that compiling with -march=atom made his Geode faster than compiling with -march=geode. The theory that each board's kernel would be faster when recompiled for Via vs. Geode should be tested. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
Hi, > What I plan on doing is adding something to the pre-install > section of the RPM to check for the proper generation of > board. Our build server isn't an XO, and will be installing the kernel RPM into the image it's building. - Chris. -- Chris Ball ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Jul 08 2009, at 22:27, John Gilmore was caught saying: > Congratulations on the merge. > > > Note that currently there is nothing keeping anyone from installing a > > kernel meant for one gen machine on a different gen machine. Just > > don't do that. :) > > Eventually if both machines are going to run a standard Fedora > release, the same binary kernel will have to be able to run on both > (and figure it out at runtime, like it does with most other x86-based > systems). I'm presuming from your message that that's scheduled to > happen some time ... later ... What I plan on doing is adding something to the pre-install section of the RPM to check for the proper generation of board. Given that we are building the for completely different CPU core, we will need different kernel RPMs to make sure our kernel is optimized for the given machine. This will not affect our ability to run the standard Fedora userland on top of our kernel. ~Deepak ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 03:47:32PM +0100, Martin Dengler wrote:
> > To differentiate between an XO-1 and XO-1.5 RPM, the generation
> > name is now inserted into the RPM name. For example:
> >
> > kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66.i586.rpm <- XO-1 RPM
> > kernel-2.6.30_xo1.5-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66.i586.rpm <- XO-1.5 RPM
>
> Is this going to cause problems? When I try to install the kernel
> (via livecd-creator), I get (apologies for the rubbish formatting):
>
> Error creating Live CD : Unable to install: [('file
> /lib/firmware/kaweth/new_code.bin conflicts between attempted installs
> of kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090709.1.olpc.d990c35.i586 and
> kernel-firmware-2.6.29.5-191.fc11.noarch', (6,
> '/lib/firmware/kaweth/new_code.bin', 0L)), ('file
The clue is in the error message. It seems my kernel-firmware commit
(which you merged) was lost in the split of the .spec files.
I'll forward a patch.
> > Enjoy,
> > ~Deepak
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Martin
Martin
pgpqzYQhz50JD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 01:43:31PM -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote:
>
> I've spent some time merging the XO-1 and XO-1.5 kernels into a new
> branch and made some tweaks to the in-kernel RPM build scripts.
Very cool, thanks. I've built new kernel rpms to a yum repo:
http://dev.laptop.org/~mdengler/xo-1
But...
> To differentiate between an XO-1 and XO-1.5 RPM, the generation
> name is now inserted into the RPM name. For example:
>
> kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66.i586.rpm <- XO-1 RPM
> kernel-2.6.30_xo1.5-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66.i586.rpm <- XO-1.5 RPM
Is this going to cause problems? When I try to install the kernel
(via livecd-creator), I get (apologies for the rubbish formatting):
Error creating Live CD : Unable to install: [('file
/lib/firmware/kaweth/new_code.bin conflicts between attempted installs
of kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090709.1.olpc.d990c35.i586 and
kernel-firmware-2.6.29.5-191.fc11.noarch', (6,
'/lib/firmware/kaweth/new_code.bin', 0L)), ('file
/lib/firmware/kaweth/new_code_fix.bin conflicts between attempted
installs of kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090709.1.olpc.d990c35.i586 and
kernel-firmware-2.6.29.5-191.fc11.noarch', (6,
'/lib/firmware/kaweth/new_code_fix.bin', 0L)), ('file
/lib/firmware/kaweth/trigger_code.bin conflicts between attempted
installs of kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090709.1.olpc.d990c35.i586 and
kernel-firmware-2.6.29.5-191.fc11.noarch', (6,
'/lib/firmware/kaweth/trigger_code.bin', 0L)), ('file
/lib/firmware/kaweth/trigger_code_fix.bin conflicts between attempted
installs of kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090709.1.olpc.d990c35.i586 and
kernel-firmware-2.6.29.5-191.fc11.noarch', (6,
'/lib/firmware/kaweth/trigger_code_fix.bin', 0L))]
> Enjoy,
> ~Deepak
Thanks again.
Martin
pgp0Z4pDGCQ8u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
Hi Deepak, On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 13:43 -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote: > Since the kernels for the two generations of XO boards have been > merged, I've had to change the commands for building RPMs and > kernels. These are: > > make xo_1_defconfig: configure kernel for OLPC XO-1 > make xo_1.5_defconfig : configure kernel for OLPC XO-1.5 > make xo_1-kernel-rpm : build XO-1 kernel RPM > make xo_1_5-kernel-rpm : build XO-1.5 kernel RPM > make olpc-kernel-rpm : build both XO-1 and XO-1.5 kernel RPMs Thanks for this. However, none of the above work. HEAD is 5c632d4d6fafe55dd. Did you forget to push? Thanks, Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:27:03PM -0700, John Gilmore wrote: > > Note that currently there is nothing keeping anyone from installing a > > kernel meant for one gen machine on a different gen machine. Just > > don't do that. :) > > Eventually if both machines are going to run a standard Fedora > release, the same binary kernel will have to be able to run on both > (and figure it out at runtime, like it does with most other x86-based > systems). AFAICS "stock Fedora kernel boots on both" doesn't imply "custom-configured kernels XO-1 and XO-1.5 must boot on both". > John Martin pgpgZu3UgbYc6.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
Congratulations on the merge. > Note that currently there is nothing keeping anyone from installing a > kernel meant for one gen machine on a different gen machine. Just > don't do that. :) Eventually if both machines are going to run a standard Fedora release, the same binary kernel will have to be able to run on both (and figure it out at runtime, like it does with most other x86-based systems). I'm presuming from your message that that's scheduled to happen some time ... later ... John ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 22:24:35 -0400 Bobby Powers wrote: [...] > > this is great, thanks! being able to build rpms like that again is > quite handy. I know its not under your job description Deepak, but do > you know of a similar way to build debs, or documentation on that > process? > You should just be able to do a "make deb-pkg"; this is a mechanism that's upstream, so it will work for any 2.6 kernel tree. Alternatively, you could use debian's 'make-kpkg', but the chances of that working has varied greatly over time. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Deepak Saxena wrote:
>
> I've spent some time merging the XO-1 and XO-1.5 kernels into a new
> branch and made some tweaks to the in-kernel RPM build scripts. From
> now on, all development for both XO-1 and XO-1.5 will be done on the
> olpc-2.6.30 branch of the olpc-2.6 repository [1]. As Linus releases
> new kernels, I will be rebasing [2] the OLPC changes on top of Linus'
> releases and creating new olpc-${kernelversion} branches to make it
> easier to move our code forward and upstream.
>
> Since the kernels for the two generations of XO boards have been
> merged, I've had to change the commands for building RPMs and
> kernels. These are:
>
> make xo_1_defconfig : configure kernel for OLPC XO-1
> make xo_1.5_defconfig : configure kernel for OLPC XO-1.5
> make xo_1-kernel-rpm : build XO-1 kernel RPM
> make xo_1_5-kernel-rpm : build XO-1.5 kernel RPM
> make olpc-kernel-rpm : build both XO-1 and XO-1.5 kernel RPMs
>
> To differentiate between an XO-1 and XO-1.5 RPM, the generation
> name is now inserted into the RPM name. For example:
>
> kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66.i586.rpm <- XO-1 RPM
> kernel-2.6.30_xo1.5-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66.i586.rpm <- XO-1.5 RPM
>
> Note that currently there is nothing keeping anyone from installing a
> kernel meant for one gen machine on a different gen machine. Just
> don't do that. :)
>
> I've also added the ability to build RPMs from trees that have
> non-commited changes. If this is done, the RPM will be tagged
> as dirty:
>
> kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66_DIRTY.i586.rpm
>
> I will update wiki with this information.
this is great, thanks! being able to build rpms like that again is
quite handy. I know its not under your job description Deepak, but do
you know of a similar way to build debs, or documentation on that
process?
bp
> Enjoy,
> ~Deepak
>
> [1] dev.laptop.org:/git/olpc-2.6
>
> [2] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-rebase.html
> for manpage, http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~cduan/technical/git/git-5.shtml
> for a quick summary.
>
> ___
> Devel mailing list
> Devel@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
New kernel branch for XO-1 and XO-1.5 development
I've spent some time merging the XO-1 and XO-1.5 kernels into a new
branch and made some tweaks to the in-kernel RPM build scripts. From
now on, all development for both XO-1 and XO-1.5 will be done on the
olpc-2.6.30 branch of the olpc-2.6 repository [1]. As Linus releases
new kernels, I will be rebasing [2] the OLPC changes on top of Linus'
releases and creating new olpc-${kernelversion} branches to make it
easier to move our code forward and upstream.
Since the kernels for the two generations of XO boards have been
merged, I've had to change the commands for building RPMs and
kernels. These are:
make xo_1_defconfig: configure kernel for OLPC XO-1
make xo_1.5_defconfig : configure kernel for OLPC XO-1.5
make xo_1-kernel-rpm : build XO-1 kernel RPM
make xo_1_5-kernel-rpm : build XO-1.5 kernel RPM
make olpc-kernel-rpm : build both XO-1 and XO-1.5 kernel RPMs
To differentiate between an XO-1 and XO-1.5 RPM, the generation
name is now inserted into the RPM name. For example:
kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66.i586.rpm <- XO-1 RPM
kernel-2.6.30_xo1.5-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66.i586.rpm <- XO-1.5 RPM
Note that currently there is nothing keeping anyone from installing a
kernel meant for one gen machine on a different gen machine. Just
don't do that. :)
I've also added the ability to build RPMs from trees that have
non-commited changes. If this is done, the RPM will be tagged
as dirty:
kernel-2.6.30_xo1-20090708.1.olpc.1fd3a66_DIRTY.i586.rpm
I will update wiki with this information.
Enjoy,
~Deepak
[1] dev.laptop.org:/git/olpc-2.6
[2] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-rebase.html
for manpage, http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~cduan/technical/git/git-5.shtml
for a quick summary.
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
