Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:03:27PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > On 8/24/20 3:21 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:15:44PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:24:28PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > >>> > >>> But yeah, some will complain that now they need to copy a different > >>> file to import the .config, but at least they will be sure of what > >>> they are copying. > >> > >> Ah ok, so both rhel and fedora was built, one was tossed and the resulting > >> config files had the same name regardless which 'flavor' was choosen. That > >> is confusing. We can/should fix that to be more clear. Or I guess > >> Prarit's > >> patch does just that. Thanks for pointing that out. > > > > It doesn't. Not yet, at least. :-) > > > > The behavior of dist-configs is the same before and after my patch. I haven't > done anything to change that behavior for fear of breaking something else. > > FWIW, I don't want to change the behavior in this patchset. It's just asking > for more trouble. Ok, I can agree with that, especially considering the changelog states: """ - Fix dist-configs to use a specified flavor instead of only ELN. By default, dist-configs will build ELN configs. """ Which is what it is doing right now, and leave the dist-config we discussed for a follow-up patch, as it is likely to be more polemic. Marcelo ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On 8/24/20 3:21 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:15:44PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:24:28PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: >>> >>> But yeah, some will complain that now they need to copy a different >>> file to import the .config, but at least they will be sure of what >>> they are copying. >> >> Ah ok, so both rhel and fedora was built, one was tossed and the resulting >> config files had the same name regardless which 'flavor' was choosen. That >> is confusing. We can/should fix that to be more clear. Or I guess Prarit's >> patch does just that. Thanks for pointing that out. > > It doesn't. Not yet, at least. :-) > The behavior of dist-configs is the same before and after my patch. I haven't done anything to change that behavior for fear of breaking something else. FWIW, I don't want to change the behavior in this patchset. It's just asking for more trouble. P. > Marcelo > ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:15:44PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:24:28PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > > > But yeah, some will complain that now they need to copy a different > > file to import the .config, but at least they will be sure of what > > they are copying. > > Ah ok, so both rhel and fedora was built, one was tossed and the resulting > config files had the same name regardless which 'flavor' was choosen. That > is confusing. We can/should fix that to be more clear. Or I guess Prarit's > patch does just that. Thanks for pointing that out. It doesn't. Not yet, at least. :-) Marcelo ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:24:28PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > But yeah, some will complain that now they need to copy a different > file to import the .config, but at least they will be sure of what > they are copying. Ah ok, so both rhel and fedora was built, one was tossed and the resulting config files had the same name regardless which 'flavor' was choosen. That is confusing. We can/should fix that to be more clear. Or I guess Prarit's patch does just that. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Don ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:52:19PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 09:31:53AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: > > > Right. rh-configs and fedora-configs are nice in that they build ONLY > > > those > > > configs. > > > > > I don't see a problem with having them broken out for specific cases, > > but really by default people should be in the habit of build/check for > > both. if you break one, you break everything. > > Here is my thinking on this. The problem is really _time_. For a large > majority of the use cases, developers are not engaging in make config > changes. They just want to create them and start hacking. Yes, time is a major part of the problem here, but there is also the fact that currently dist-configs "builds" config for both, but "processes" only for one (or the other way around). See the confusion? (mangled paths to make them shorter) redhat ((1170437ac4a7...))]$ make dist-configs BUILDID is ".test". cd /redhat/configs; rm -f kernel-*.config \ kernel-*.config.orig \ kernel-*.config.tmp cd /redhat/configs; ./build_configs.sh "kernel" "" "" Building /redhat/configs/kernel-x86_64-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-x86_64-debug-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-ppc64le-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-ppc64le-debug-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-s390x-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-s390x-debug-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-s390x-zfcpdump-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-aarch64-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-aarch64-debug-rhel.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-x86_64-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-x86_64-debug-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-i686-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-i686-debug-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-ppc64le-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-ppc64le-debug-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-s390x-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-s390x-debug-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-aarch64-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-aarch64-debug-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-armv7hl-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-armv7hl-debug-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-armv7hl-lpae-fedora.config ... done Building /redhat/configs/kernel-armv7hl-lpae-debug-fedora.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-aarch64-debug.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-aarch64.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-ppc64le-debug.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-ppc64le.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-s390x-debug.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-s390x-zfcpdump.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-s390x.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-x86_64-debug.config ... done Processing /redhat/configs/kernel-5.9.0-x86_64.config ... done Processed config files are in /redhat/configs Which flavor does kernel-5.9.0-x86_64.config have? If it had 'built' only 'rhel', I would know better. Point is, you have only one of the flavors built, and untagged. So I'm wondering, how useful it really is, as is? If it gets changed to be rh-configs + fedora-configs by default (if no other flavor is explicitly passed on the cmdline), even if it takes longer, that's fine by me, as it will be clearer. But yeah, some will complain that now they need to copy a different file to import the .config, but at least they will be sure of what they are copying. > > For that case, we should aim to be as quick as possible. I mean generating > the configs is slower than what people expect. > > However, as part of an MR verification process, we _should_ check. We > should run 'make dist-check-configs' as part of the CI to catch anything. > Nothing should be merged unless it passes that check for the exact reasons > you provided. > > Now once developers get burned a few times, they will learn to run that > command locally before submitting an MR. And that is easy to do. > > For that reason, I have been leaning towards finding ways to speed up > dist-configs and incorporate the full checks in gitlab-ci.yml. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Don > ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 09:31:53AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: > > Right. rh-configs and fedora-configs are nice in that they build ONLY those > > configs. > > > I don't see a problem with having them broken out for specific cases, > but really by default people should be in the habit of build/check for > both. if you break one, you break everything. Here is my thinking on this. The problem is really _time_. For a large majority of the use cases, developers are not engaging in make config changes. They just want to create them and start hacking. For that case, we should aim to be as quick as possible. I mean generating the configs is slower than what people expect. However, as part of an MR verification process, we _should_ check. We should run 'make dist-check-configs' as part of the CI to catch anything. Nothing should be merged unless it passes that check for the exact reasons you provided. Now once developers get burned a few times, they will learn to run that command locally before submitting an MR. And that is easy to do. For that reason, I have been leaning towards finding ways to speed up dist-configs and incorporate the full checks in gitlab-ci.yml. Thoughts? Cheers, Don ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:25:21AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > dist-configs would be supported but not as an expected common command and > > would only be seen through dist-full-help? > > Yeah, I think that's what he's getting at. dist-configs would be an internal > only target. Internally hidden (behind dist-full-help) but publicly available. > > > > > And the main reason is really time, right? If generating un-used fedora > > configs only consumed less than a second of time, we wouldn't care. It is > > because it takes about 10 seconds it is a problem? Which is fine, I just > > want to understand the true underlying problem. > > Right. rh-configs and fedora-configs are nice in that they build ONLY those > configs. That doesn't quite answer my question. If it would only take a fraction of a second to build them would we care? Or is there something else technically that is driving us in this direction? Cheers, Don ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On 8/21/20 5:25 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:37:24PM -, GitLab Bridge on behalf of prarit > wrote: >> From: Prarit Bhargava >> >> The 'dist-configs' is not working properly as it only creates ELN >> configs. The 'rh-configs' and 'fedora-configs' targets are not >> working properly and should be creating ELN and Fedora configs but they >> only create some temporary/intermediate build files. These targets >> should output final .config files for each supported arch. >> >> There are several fixes necessary to get the *-configs targets working >> properly: >> >> - Fix dist-configs to use a specified flavor instead of only ELN. By >> default, dist-configs will build ELN configs. > > As is, dist-configs is actually redundant with rh/fedora-configs, and > could even be removed. Well, not considering backward compatibility. > > When I run it here, it: > - generates rhel configs > - generated fedora configs (wasted (cpu) time) > - process rhel configs > > and final files are not tagged with 'rhel'. That's the way the script is expected to work atm. I just wanted to get everything working before adding new features. > > It would be nice to have a target that generates both flavors at once. So the rpm does exactly that and maybe that should be pushed into the targets somehow. But that's for a later patch IMO ;) P. > With that I can easily check how the config is on both and if the > changes are getting applied correctly. But yes, I can easily script > that around rh-configs/fedora-configs as well, and thus why I'm not > seeing a reason for the dist-configs target, at least not as it is > now. Perhaps we should hide it (from the help), as an internal target > that should only be used to build the two other ones. Thoughts? > > rh-configs and fedora-configs are working nicely now, btw :) > > ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On 8/24/20 10:31 AM, Justin Forbes wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> >> On 8/24/20 9:49 AM, Don Zickus wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 06:56:29AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > and final files are not tagged with 'rhel'. That's the current way dist-configs does things. I debated adding a rename function to the os specific configs targets but think that should be a separate patch. *This* patch is to fix them so that they actually work ;) > > It would be nice to have a target that generates both flavors at once. > With that I can easily check how the config is on both and if the > changes are getting applied correctly. But yes, I can easily script > that around rh-configs/fedora-configs as well, and thus why I'm not > seeing a reason for the dist-configs target, at least not as it is > now. Perhaps we should hide it (from the help), as an internal target > that should only be used to build the two other ones. Thoughts? Not a bad idea. dzickus? jforbes? I can certainly respin and remove the 'dist-configs' entry in 'make rh-help'. >>> >>> Just trying to understand the proposal. >>> >>> Have 2 targets exposed with dist-help: rh-configs and fedora-configs? >>> >>> dist-configs would be supported but not as an expected common command and >>> would only be seen through dist-full-help? >> >> Yeah, I think that's what he's getting at. dist-configs would be an internal >> only target. >> > I don't know why it would be considered internal only. if you are > planning to use the other rpm package options, you have to have to > have configs for both. If you are making config changes, and break > one, it will kill the build for both. Basically, the only time you > need configs for only one, is when you are planning to copy it as a > .config for a non packaged build. > >>> >>> And the main reason is really time, right? If generating un-used fedora >>> configs only consumed less than a second of time, we wouldn't care. It is >>> because it takes about 10 seconds it is a problem? Which is fine, I just >>> want to understand the true underlying problem. >> >> Right. rh-configs and fedora-configs are nice in that they build ONLY those >> configs. >> > I don't see a problem with having them broken out for specific cases, > but really by default people should be in the habit of build/check for > both. if you break one, you break everything. > So the short answer here is "no, we don't want to do that" :) P. > Justin > > ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > On 8/24/20 9:49 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 06:56:29AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >>> and final files are not tagged with 'rhel'. > >> > >> That's the current way dist-configs does things. I debated adding a rename > >> function to the os specific configs targets but think that should be a > >> separate > >> patch. *This* patch is to fix them so that they actually work ;) > >> > >>> > >>> It would be nice to have a target that generates both flavors at once. > >>> With that I can easily check how the config is on both and if the > >>> changes are getting applied correctly. But yes, I can easily script > >>> that around rh-configs/fedora-configs as well, > >> > >> > >> and thus why I'm not > >>> seeing a reason for the dist-configs target, at least not as it is > >>> now. Perhaps we should hide it (from the help), as an internal target > >>> that should only be used to build the two other ones. Thoughts? > >> > >> Not a bad idea. dzickus? jforbes? I can certainly respin and remove the > >> 'dist-configs' entry in 'make rh-help'. > > > > Just trying to understand the proposal. > > > > Have 2 targets exposed with dist-help: rh-configs and fedora-configs? > > > > dist-configs would be supported but not as an expected common command and > > would only be seen through dist-full-help? > > Yeah, I think that's what he's getting at. dist-configs would be an internal > only target. > I don't know why it would be considered internal only. if you are planning to use the other rpm package options, you have to have to have configs for both. If you are making config changes, and break one, it will kill the build for both. Basically, the only time you need configs for only one, is when you are planning to copy it as a .config for a non packaged build. > > > > And the main reason is really time, right? If generating un-used fedora > > configs only consumed less than a second of time, we wouldn't care. It is > > because it takes about 10 seconds it is a problem? Which is fine, I just > > want to understand the true underlying problem. > > Right. rh-configs and fedora-configs are nice in that they build ONLY those > configs. > I don't see a problem with having them broken out for specific cases, but really by default people should be in the habit of build/check for both. if you break one, you break everything. Justin ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On 8/24/20 9:49 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 06:56:29AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> and final files are not tagged with 'rhel'. >> >> That's the current way dist-configs does things. I debated adding a rename >> function to the os specific configs targets but think that should be a >> separate >> patch. *This* patch is to fix them so that they actually work ;) >> >>> >>> It would be nice to have a target that generates both flavors at once. >>> With that I can easily check how the config is on both and if the >>> changes are getting applied correctly. But yes, I can easily script >>> that around rh-configs/fedora-configs as well, >> >> >> and thus why I'm not >>> seeing a reason for the dist-configs target, at least not as it is >>> now. Perhaps we should hide it (from the help), as an internal target >>> that should only be used to build the two other ones. Thoughts? >> >> Not a bad idea. dzickus? jforbes? I can certainly respin and remove the >> 'dist-configs' entry in 'make rh-help'. > > Just trying to understand the proposal. > > Have 2 targets exposed with dist-help: rh-configs and fedora-configs? > > dist-configs would be supported but not as an expected common command and > would only be seen through dist-full-help? Yeah, I think that's what he's getting at. dist-configs would be an internal only target. > > And the main reason is really time, right? If generating un-used fedora > configs only consumed less than a second of time, we wouldn't care. It is > because it takes about 10 seconds it is a problem? Which is fine, I just > want to understand the true underlying problem. Right. rh-configs and fedora-configs are nice in that they build ONLY those configs. P. > > Cheers, > Don > ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 06:56:29AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > and final files are not tagged with 'rhel'. > > That's the current way dist-configs does things. I debated adding a rename > function to the os specific configs targets but think that should be a > separate > patch. *This* patch is to fix them so that they actually work ;) > > > > > It would be nice to have a target that generates both flavors at once. > > With that I can easily check how the config is on both and if the > > changes are getting applied correctly. But yes, I can easily script > > that around rh-configs/fedora-configs as well, > > > and thus why I'm not > > seeing a reason for the dist-configs target, at least not as it is > > now. Perhaps we should hide it (from the help), as an internal target > > that should only be used to build the two other ones. Thoughts? > > Not a bad idea. dzickus? jforbes? I can certainly respin and remove the > 'dist-configs' entry in 'make rh-help'. Just trying to understand the proposal. Have 2 targets exposed with dist-help: rh-configs and fedora-configs? dist-configs would be supported but not as an expected common command and would only be seen through dist-full-help? And the main reason is really time, right? If generating un-used fedora configs only consumed less than a second of time, we wouldn't care. It is because it takes about 10 seconds it is a problem? Which is fine, I just want to understand the true underlying problem. Cheers, Don ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On 8/21/20 5:25 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:37:24PM -, GitLab Bridge on behalf of prarit > wrote: >> From: Prarit Bhargava >> >> The 'dist-configs' is not working properly as it only creates ELN >> configs. The 'rh-configs' and 'fedora-configs' targets are not >> working properly and should be creating ELN and Fedora configs but they >> only create some temporary/intermediate build files. These targets >> should output final .config files for each supported arch. >> >> There are several fixes necessary to get the *-configs targets working >> properly: >> >> - Fix dist-configs to use a specified flavor instead of only ELN. By >> default, dist-configs will build ELN configs. > > As is, dist-configs is actually redundant with rh/fedora-configs, and > could even be removed. Well, not considering backward compatibility. > > When I run it here, it: > - generates rhel configs > - generated fedora configs (wasted (cpu) time) > - process rhel configs > > and final files are not tagged with 'rhel'. That's the current way dist-configs does things. I debated adding a rename function to the os specific configs targets but think that should be a separate patch. *This* patch is to fix them so that they actually work ;) > > It would be nice to have a target that generates both flavors at once. > With that I can easily check how the config is on both and if the > changes are getting applied correctly. But yes, I can easily script > that around rh-configs/fedora-configs as well, and thus why I'm not > seeing a reason for the dist-configs target, at least not as it is > now. Perhaps we should hide it (from the help), as an internal target > that should only be used to build the two other ones. Thoughts? Not a bad idea. dzickus? jforbes? I can certainly respin and remove the 'dist-configs' entry in 'make rh-help'. > > rh-configs and fedora-configs are working nicely now, btw :) P. > > ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [OS-BUILD PATCH 1/3] redhat/Makefile: Fix '*-configs' targets
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:37:24PM -, GitLab Bridge on behalf of prarit wrote: > From: Prarit Bhargava > > The 'dist-configs' is not working properly as it only creates ELN > configs. The 'rh-configs' and 'fedora-configs' targets are not > working properly and should be creating ELN and Fedora configs but they > only create some temporary/intermediate build files. These targets > should output final .config files for each supported arch. > > There are several fixes necessary to get the *-configs targets working > properly: > > - Fix dist-configs to use a specified flavor instead of only ELN. By > default, dist-configs will build ELN configs. As is, dist-configs is actually redundant with rh/fedora-configs, and could even be removed. Well, not considering backward compatibility. When I run it here, it: - generates rhel configs - generated fedora configs (wasted (cpu) time) - process rhel configs and final files are not tagged with 'rhel'. It would be nice to have a target that generates both flavors at once. With that I can easily check how the config is on both and if the changes are getting applied correctly. But yes, I can easily script that around rh-configs/fedora-configs as well, and thus why I'm not seeing a reason for the dist-configs target, at least not as it is now. Perhaps we should hide it (from the help), as an internal target that should only be used to build the two other ones. Thoughts? rh-configs and fedora-configs are working nicely now, btw :) ___ kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
