On 11/29/2017 10:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Prarit Bhargava
<prarit(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 09:16 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Like all good bits of software, the kernel.spec has grown over time.
>>> Part of this growth has come from building more of the userspace
>>> tools that live under the tools directory of the kernel. I've been
>>> experimenting with moving these to a separate spec file.
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>> - Less stuff in the kernel.spec file (~300 line deletion)
>>> - Fewer build deps for things like perf
>>> - People building the kernel only get the kernel
>>> - Issues with userspace tools don't impact the kernel
>>> - Can likely drop most of the debuginfo regex nightmare for the userspace
>>> packages
>>>
>>> Disadvantages:
>>> - Would need to manually keep in sync on some cadence. This is mostly
>>> an issue for rawhide. Could we actually get away with only re-building
>>> on each new kernel version or do we need to resync on each -rc?
>>> - Would probably need to rework how tools are tied to kernel versions at
>>> the package level
>>> - Others added here
>
> IIUC this means if I have a patch that touches tools/power/turbostat and
> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c I now have to open up two bugzillas to track things so
> that the kernel and kernel tools is synchronized?
No? Why would you need two bugs?
For example, the kernel package is built every night. And the kernel-tools
package is now built randomly (if it is automatically built when the kernel
package is built then there's no problem).
I apply a patch that (in my example above) patches both tools/power/turbostat
and drivers/idle/intel_idle.c I need *both* packages to be built. If
kernel-tools and the kernel packages are out-of-sync with one another then
there's going to be a problem.
> There are times where tools/power require changes to real kernel code and the
> userspace tools. While this is happening less frequently, it has happened in
> the past and it could happen in the future. Anyone on the virt side of things
> want to comment? ISTR having a conversation with someone about versions of
> tools/hv requiring *specific* kernel versions (I'm foggy on the details).
None of the existing kernel-tools packages have any sort of Requires
on specific kernel versions. If that is actually a problem, they
could be added but it doesn't appear to actually be an issue today...
I've hit this situation a few times with RHEL, where someone updated the kernel
rpm but not the kernel-tools rpm. It probably happens more often at the server
level because of the tools usage. It has never taken more than a "Please update
your kernel-tools package" to get the reporter to fix the problem.
P.
> josh
> _______________________________________________
> kernel mailing list -- kernel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>