Re: kernel-vanilla builds for 2.6.27-rc1
2008/8/8 Josh Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 00:39 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote: 2008/8/7 Josh Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 23:01 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: http://jwboyer.fedorapeople.org/pub/ Let the kernel installs begin. Hopefully I didn't fsck something up horridly. If I did, then I'll fix it for -rc2. Updated to -rc2 builds now. And the kernel-firmware Requires issue should be fixed up thanks to Jarod. It looks all good from here. I'll be posting a diff of the vanilla and ummm ... blueberry ... dmesg in a moment. Any caveats, gotchas, test suites? As for gotchas, well, it's a -rc2 kernel so be warned. But the same is true of rawhide in general. My current plan is to only do vanilla builds for -rc and final releases, unless a particular -rc is really badly broken and a git snapshot fixes quite a bit. A few caveats below. The intention isn't to provide an alternative kernel. It's more for those that want to test something and see if it works on vanilla as opposed to a patched Fedora kernel. That should be quite rare, as the Fedora kernels are fairly top notch and don't differ much from vanilla anyway. Then I suppose this begs the question - why aren't we shipping a vanilla kernel to begin with? I'm sure there are excellent answers and I'm aware of some of them already. I do think it would be good to pimp this a bit more and that it could be offered as a viable alternative. Or do I have my head in clouds I don't understand? Probably. I'm sure some will use it as a primary kernel, but they should realize there is no support for these and the likely response will be try rawhide and/or please report it to the Linux kernel mailing list. On the contrary would this not bring greater support. At the moment mainline ask people with bugs to test with mainline which your average joe has difficulty with. Also, due to quota limitations I can really only host one kernel version at a time. That means as soon as -rc3 comes out, the current builds are replaced. Understood, but if there was some way to get this added into the official repositories do the Fedora kernel bods see an opportunity? Cheers -- Christopher Brown http://www.chruz.com ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel-vanilla builds for 2.6.27-rc1
On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 23:20 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote: The intention isn't to provide an alternative kernel. It's more for those that want to test something and see if it works on vanilla as opposed to a patched Fedora kernel. That should be quite rare, as the Fedora kernels are fairly top notch and don't differ much from vanilla anyway. Then I suppose this begs the question - why aren't we shipping a vanilla kernel to begin with? Because there are patches that _are_ carried in Fedora that aren't upstream. Execshield, utrace, etc. And of course, the Fedora kernel developers put bug fix patches into Fedora while things are being worked upstream. Also, while rawhide tends to track vanilla very closely, the release version kernels do often care additional backports and fixes for things like wireless, etc. Just shipping the stock vanilla kernel there, while not being horrible, wouldn't have the same functionality that Fedora does. I'm sure there are excellent answers and I'm aware of some of them already. I do think it would be good to pimp this a bit more and that it could be offered as a viable alternative. Or do I have my head in clouds I don't understand? Probably. In the clouds, no. It's just not feasible at the moment. Also, due to quota limitations I can really only host one kernel version at a time. That means as soon as -rc3 comes out, the current builds are replaced. Understood, but if there was some way to get this added into the official repositories do the Fedora kernel bods see an opportunity? I personally don't. It's an additional kernel, which we've avoided to date in the official repositories for good reasons. It's also a lower valued download target, and having it sitting there on the official mirrors takes up roughly 2.4 GiB. josh ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: kernel-vanilla builds for 2.6.27-rc1
On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 23:01 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: http://jwboyer.fedorapeople.org/pub/ Let the kernel installs begin. Hopefully I didn't fsck something up horridly. If I did, then I'll fix it for -rc2. Updated to -rc2 builds now. And the kernel-firmware Requires issue should be fixed up thanks to Jarod. josh ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
kernel-vanilla builds for 2.6.27-rc1
http://jwboyer.fedorapeople.org/pub/ Let the kernel installs begin. Hopefully I didn't fsck something up horridly. If I did, then I'll fix it for -rc2. josh ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: -vanilla builds.
Bill Nottingham wrote: Jason L Tibbitts III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: DJ == Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DJ I think we ended up settling on putting them on DJ people.fedoraproject.org. Given the 150MB quota, this probably DJ means... Actually all it means is that you need to ask for more space. Sort of. Adding debuginfo + all arches means that each vanilla build could end up taking up over a gigabyte. There are limits to how much space we can ask for. We have just to find a sucker to fix the DWARF mess that we have these days... hey, don't look at me... too closely... :-P - Arnaldo ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
-vanilla builds.
I'd like to move forward on us getting vanilla builds out for testers.
There are a couple things worth thinking about, which I'd like other
peoples thoughts on.
* The location of the binaries - I think we ended up settling
on putting them on people.fedoraproject.org.
Given the 150MB quota, this probably means...
- no -debuginfo packages. (not a huge deal)
- probably just x86/x86-64 to begin with.
- probably no non-debug variants (ie, same model
as rawhide, with debug 'always on'
- worth doing PAE and non-PAE ? just one? which?
* how/where to building them.
AFAIK, it isn't possible to pass switches like --with-vanilla
to koji, so the two options are..
- build vanilla as part of the regular build
(not a great idea, it already takes hours to build
a complete set of kernels).
- I kick off a bunch of rpmbuilds locally and push them
by hand. (scriptable at least, so not such a big deal).
I think this is the best option.
* frequency of updates.
I don't think it's really worthwhile doing daily builds.
Doing at least one per -rc is probably a good target,
with perhaps a -rcN-git build periodically if the next
-rc is taking a while to land.
* dependancies.
This is the only remaining technical puzzle I think.
I'd like the vanilla rpms to install on FC6, F7, and rawhide.
Doing separate builds per distro is just going to kill me.
The only thing stopping this from working is requires: lines
like ..
%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts =
%8.11.1-1, mkinitrd = 6.0.9-7
I'm thinking perhaps something like..
%if ! %{with_vanilla}
%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts =
%8.11.1-1, mkinitrd = 6.0.9-7
%else
%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts, mkinitrd
%endif
might do the trick.
However for some cases, those versioned dependancies are there for a reason,
and I'm
not entirely sure what to do about them. I'd rather not have to
build non-kernel packages for the vanilla repo too.
Ideas ?
Ideally I'd like to get to a state where these are built
by a cronjob on my desktop that checks for a new rc,
and uploads new updates whilst I sleep^Wdo something else.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: -vanilla builds.
DJ == Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DJ I think we ended up settling on putting them on DJ people.fedoraproject.org. Given the 150MB quota, this probably DJ means... Actually all it means is that you need to ask for more space. - J ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: -vanilla builds.
Jason L Tibbitts III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: DJ == Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DJ I think we ended up settling on putting them on DJ people.fedoraproject.org. Given the 150MB quota, this probably DJ means... Actually all it means is that you need to ask for more space. Sort of. Adding debuginfo + all arches means that each vanilla build could end up taking up over a gigabyte. There are limits to how much space we can ask for. Bill ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: -vanilla builds.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 06:52:41AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: On 29.08.2007 21:05, Dave Jones wrote: I'd like to move forward on us getting vanilla builds out for testers. I'm willing to help here if there is anything I can do. There are a couple things worth thinking about, which I'd like other peoples thoughts on. * The location of the binaries - I think we ended up settling on putting them on people.fedoraproject.org. My vote is still to ship them in the proper repos -- an idea lot of people liked in last weeks discussion here. But people feared the space requirements. But that's a problem on p.f.o as well afaics. Nearly everyone else I've talked to about this seems to be against that idea for whatever reasons. * how/where to building them. AFAIK, it isn't possible to pass switches like --with-vanilla to koji, so the two options are.. - build vanilla as part of the regular build (not a great idea, it already takes hours to build a complete set of kernels). How about a different package kernel-vanilla in CVS that can be build independently of the normal build? This means committing rebases to 1 place, which sounds like losing. It doesn't really bring any advantages either afaics. [...] * dependancies. This is the only remaining technical puzzle I think. I'd like the vanilla rpms to install on FC6, F7, and rawhide. Doing separate builds per distro is just going to kill me. But often needed, as people otherwise often can't build kernel modules theirselfs, as GCC doesn't match (it does currently iirc, but often there are different major versions of gcc in the different distros. 3rd party modules for kernel-vanilla brings up an interesting question. For bugs found in kernel-vanilla, I want *everything* to go to linux-kernel or bugzilla.kernel.org. If reports there contain any out-of-tree modules, they'll get closed out no questions asked. AFAIAC, 3rd party modules are even less supportable on -vanilla than they are on the regular fedora kernel. For the minority that can't live without 3rd party modules, they can build their own kernels, because building a full set of kernels for each distro is time consuming enough that I only want to do this once. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: -vanilla builds.
On 30.08.2007 07:03, Dave Jones wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 06:52:41AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: On 29.08.2007 21:05, Dave Jones wrote: I'd like to move forward on us getting vanilla builds out for testers. I'm willing to help here if there is anything I can do. There are a couple things worth thinking about, which I'd like other peoples thoughts on. * The location of the binaries - I think we ended up settling on putting them on people.fedoraproject.org. My vote is still to ship them in the proper repos -- an idea lot of people liked in last weeks discussion here. But people feared the space requirements. But that's a problem on p.f.o as well afaics. Nearly everyone else I've talked to about this seems to be against that idea for whatever reasons. Hallway conversations :-/ I understand that it makes things easier often, but please share what you discussed and especially the outcome (like you did with that sentence above) with the public, so outside contributors don't feel like second class contributors whos opinion doesn't count. * how/where to building them. AFAIK, it isn't possible to pass switches like --with-vanilla to koji, so the two options are.. - build vanilla as part of the regular build (not a great idea, it already takes hours to build a complete set of kernels). How about a different package kernel-vanilla in CVS that can be build independently of the normal build? This means committing rebases to 1 place, which sounds like losing. It doesn't really bring any advantages either afaics. Yeah, you have a point. [...] * dependancies. This is the only remaining technical puzzle I think. I'd like the vanilla rpms to install on FC6, F7, and rawhide. Doing separate builds per distro is just going to kill me. But often needed, as people otherwise often can't build kernel modules theirselfs, as GCC doesn't match (it does currently iirc, but often there are different major versions of gcc in the different distros. 3rd party modules for kernel-vanilla brings up an interesting question. For bugs found in kernel-vanilla, I want *everything* to go to linux-kernel or bugzilla.kernel.org. +1 If reports there contain any out-of-tree modules, they'll get closed out no questions asked. AFAIAC, 3rd party modules are even less supportable on -vanilla than they are on the regular fedora kernel. For the minority that can't live without 3rd party modules, they can build their own kernels, because building a full set of kernels for each distro is time consuming enough that I only want to do this once. I think you are making your life to easy here. CU knurd ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
