On 06.12.2016 19:46, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 12/06/2016 04:44 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Lo! On 21.11.2016 19:46, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> As a follow up to the previous discussion about kernel configuration
>> in Fedora
(
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@lists.fedoraproject....)
>> I have a prototype of what a method of keeping each configuration
>> file in a separate file would look like. This method takes care of
>> several of my gripes of the current version (and found a few errors
>> in the existing config files). The biggest question I have is if
>> this will scale for how frequently Fedora adjusts configuration
>> options. Some of that could possibly be solved with more scripting
>> improvements.
[…]
> * Just thinking aloud: I wonder if the pre-generated *debug.configs are
> a good idea. Wouldn't it be more obvious what is happening if we'd ship
> one base config (e.g. where debugging is turned off) and then have
> something in the spec file itself that builds slightly modified version
> depending on what is needed in the current build? Having a mechanism
> like this might be handy for other situations as well. For example we
> could have something in the spec file that automatically disables
> "CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_48" and "CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS" when
building for
> "$fedora_release <= F25"; this way we'd make sure things like that
do
> not accidental make it into older releases during a rebase.
I'm not sure how that would be more obvious. Generating the configs
makes it easier to check each file to see what's present vs not
being able to see what's enabled until it is built. I'm wary
to put anything more in the .spec file than we have to since the
file is complicated enough as is.
Yeah, I can see that (albeit I found the
"generate_(all|debug)_configs.sh" scrits a bit confusing at first and
would prefer to see the commands directly in the spec file). But OTOH:
Having the spec file enforce config
policy would be a step in the wrong direction.
I tend to think: putting too much tricks into our SCM is the wrong
direction. Sure, it might make things easier to maintain for Fedora
developers. But it's not a fedpkg checkout advanced users start with
when they want to build a modified package -- instead it's typically the
SRPM they will use as base. That's why we have individual patches there
and that's why I think some logic is better suited there -- for example
when it comes to configurations options that are better disabled
(ideally automatically!) when you rebuild a rawhide kernel on the latest
or and earlier Fedora release.
The latter is something I do, so I obviously have a interest to make
that easy. Thus I wanted my voice to get heard in this discussion, which
I archived now, so I'm happy :-) IOW: it's not a big issue for me, I'm
fine with putting this subthread to a rest now.
Cu, knurd