10:14 a.m.
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 13:29 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Chris Tyler <chris(a)tylers.info>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 09:54 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
>> Similar package (fake-build-provides [1], [2]) is required in koji on
>> platforms where 32bit userspace lives with 64bit-only kernel (sparc and
>> s390x) so I may be worth adding such package to the collection and track
>> the changes in dist-git instead of using an ad-hocs rpms.
>
> Shouldn't fake-kernel be a subpackage of kernel?
Certainly seems to be the obvious way to deal with it.
That sounds reasonable and obvious, but I was thinking that wouldn't fly
with the kernel maintainers...how about we ask them (copied).
Folks: we currently don't have a kernel package in Fedora ARM. Several
people are working on fixing this by working on kernel images that
support various targets, and it will be excellent to get to a point
where we can ask you to endorse a couple of subpackage ARM kernel
variants like -omap perhaps by having a branch on the official kernel
package that can carry some of the bits being worked on in a more
official capacity than them living in separate packages, eventually.
That will combine with support for ARM kernel unification and DeviceTree
upstream so that eventually, we can do a single kernel image for
most/many ARM systems (esp. v7 systems). But for some while yet, there
will be some systems for which we have no useful ARM kernel package.
Currently, Fedora ARM carries a special package that just provides fake
deps (and we're not alone in this, other secondaries have fake deps
packages for other stuff, so there is precedent for doing this).
What do the kernel maintainers think about having a kernel subpackage
that just provides fake deps as part of the main kernel package?
Jon.
10:27 a.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:14:56AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Folks: we currently don't have a kernel package in Fedora ARM.
Several
people are working on fixing this by working on kernel images that
support various targets, and it will be excellent to get to a point
where we can ask you to endorse a couple of subpackage ARM kernel
variants like -omap perhaps by having a branch on the official kernel
package that can carry some of the bits being worked on in a more
official capacity than them living in separate packages, eventually.
...
You want a distribution that can't be supported by the standard kernel
package? That sounds like an absolute security nightmare.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
12:54 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 16:27 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:14:56AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Folks: we currently don't have a kernel package in Fedora ARM. Several
> people are working on fixing this by working on kernel images that
> support various targets, and it will be excellent to get to a point
> where we can ask you to endorse a couple of subpackage ARM kernel
> variants like -omap perhaps by having a branch on the official kernel
> package that can carry some of the bits being worked on in a more
> official capacity than them living in separate packages, eventually.
You want a distribution that can't be supported by the standard
kernel
package?
Nope. Where did I say I want that?
What I said was that there is no official kernel package for Fedora ARM
systems at the moment, so everyone rolls their own. We've got a test
kernel package in the works for omap systems, and will add perhaps one
or two more before ultimately upstream efforts at devicetree allow for a
single kernel image to be properly supported. Depending on timing, I
would like to have e.g. an official kernel-arm-omap subpackage on the
main kernel, just with the OMAP config options turned on.
The current test kernel is just a stock F15 kernel with a few config
changes, and a single patch to fig a power regulation bug. I think it
won't be too long before we can ask to get an official subpackage of the
main Fedora kernel to carry these bits rather than the interim test
status they have at the moment. But none of this was really why I sent
the mail :) We'll get to a point where Fedora ARM can use a single
standard kernel binary in due course, but until then (and for other use
cases) I think there's value in perhaps considering having a fake
provides kernel subpackage for those systems that need "kernel" deps but
aren't going to or cannot run the stock Fedora kernel.
That sounds like an absolute security nightmare.
It's no different than you building a test kernel and posting it out for
people to play with. Fedora ARM is a secondary arch. There is no
official kernel (yet). We want to change this. It doesn't get changed
unless test kernel images are built and things like device tree setup
are figured out prior to eventually requesting a merge into the official
Fedora kernel config. I'm all for pushing bits into the official kernel
as quickly as possible, but it's just not quite ready for this yet.
Jon.
1:09 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:54:29PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
The current test kernel is just a stock F15 kernel with a few config
changes, and a single patch to fig a power regulation bug. I think it
won't be too long before we can ask to get an official subpackage of the
main Fedora kernel to carry these bits rather than the interim test
status they have at the moment. But none of this was really why I sent
the mail :) We'll get to a point where Fedora ARM can use a single
standard kernel binary in due course, but until then (and for other use
cases) I think there's value in perhaps considering having a fake
provides kernel subpackage for those systems that need "kernel" deps but
aren't going to or cannot run the stock Fedora kernel.
I'm clearly misunderstanding. If you have your own kernel images, why do
you need the fake ones?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
1:35 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 19:09 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:54:29PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> The current test kernel is just a stock F15 kernel with a few config
> changes, and a single patch to fig a power regulation bug. I think it
> won't be too long before we can ask to get an official subpackage of the
> main Fedora kernel to carry these bits rather than the interim test
> status they have at the moment. But none of this was really why I sent
> the mail :) We'll get to a point where Fedora ARM can use a single
> standard kernel binary in due course, but until then (and for other use
> cases) I think there's value in perhaps considering having a fake
> provides kernel subpackage for those systems that need "kernel" deps but
> aren't going to or cannot run the stock Fedora kernel.
I'm clearly misunderstanding. If you have your own kernel images, why do
you need the fake ones?
Ah, ok. The point is that we can't support every target yet[0] and are
focusing e.g. on OMAP3/4 (BeagleBoard and PandaBoard) in the test kernel
available so far. For everyone else, it's desired to have something that
satisfies RPM about kernel deps and allows things like dracut to
install. All of this works great once the fake deps are in place - I've
a system booting with root encrypted LVM with dracut on F13 for example,
but the kernel itself is for Freescale iMX5 and not in RPM format yet.
Jon.
[0] Existing ARM kernels are hard to build generically as you know. This
is changing and we'll be at a point sooner than later where many of the
major targets we care about can be supported in a single kernel image.
1:38 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:35:55PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Ah, ok. The point is that we can't support every target yet[0]
and are
focusing e.g. on OMAP3/4 (BeagleBoard and PandaBoard) in the test kernel
available so far. For everyone else, it's desired to have something that
satisfies RPM about kernel deps and allows things like dracut to
install. All of this works great once the fake deps are in place - I've
a system booting with root encrypted LVM with dracut on F13 for example,
but the kernel itself is for Freescale iMX5 and not in RPM format yet.
So why not provide the fake-kernel package from the kernel SRPM you do
have? If you have your own non-mainline packages then it makes more
sense to put the hacks there than it does to put them in the mainline
distribution.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
1:54 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:35:55PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Ah, ok. The point is that we can't support every target yet[0] and are
> focusing e.g. on OMAP3/4 (BeagleBoard and PandaBoard) in the test kernel
> available so far. For everyone else, it's desired to have something that
> satisfies RPM about kernel deps and allows things like dracut to
> install. All of this works great once the fake deps are in place - I've
> a system booting with root encrypted LVM with dracut on F13 for example,
> but the kernel itself is for Freescale iMX5 and not in RPM format yet.
So why not provide the fake-kernel package from the kernel SRPM you do
have? If you have your own non-mainline packages then it makes more
sense to put the hacks there than it does to put them in the mainline
distribution.
Because presumably, the goal is that the ARM kernel they *do* build is
built using an unmodified kernel spec. We do have ARM bits in the spec
right now.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod(a)redhat.com
12:56 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 11:14 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
What do the kernel maintainers think about having a kernel
subpackage
that just provides fake deps as part of the main kernel package?
Anyway. To get back to the point...there are some systems that cannot
run a stock Fedora kernel yet or need fake kernel deps for other
reasons. Is there any fundamental objection to the fake-kernel package
being integrated by way of an official kernel sub-package? (perhaps even
selectively buildable and not built by default on e.g. x86?).
Jon.
1:15 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
Jon Masters wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 11:14 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> What do the kernel maintainers think about having a kernel subpackage
> that just provides fake deps as part of the main kernel package?
Anyway. To get back to the point...there are some systems that cannot
run a stock Fedora kernel yet or need fake kernel deps for other
reasons. Is there any fundamental objection to the fake-kernel package
being integrated by way of an official kernel sub-package? (perhaps even
selectively buildable and not built by default on e.g. x86?).
Do not want. This is just as easily accomplished by a separate spec that
doesn't clutter up the official kernel spec even further than it already is.
A kernel-none package would, however, be potentially amusing to even
relatively sane arches like x86. Install the kernel-none variant, and
you don't get kernel updates via yum, which may be desired, if you're
running your own locally built kernel and don't want the bootloader
constantly being updated to point to the newly installed kernel rpm when
you really want the locally built kernel to keep being the default boot
kernel... But this has no way of working in Anaconda, which is another
reason why I think it has no place in the actual kernel spec. I presume
people "installing" on ARM are creating an image on another host, rather
than actually running through an anaconda install.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod(a)redhat.com
1:32 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 14:15 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 11:14 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
>> What do the kernel maintainers think about having a kernel subpackage
>> that just provides fake deps as part of the main kernel package?
>
> Anyway. To get back to the point...there are some systems that cannot
> run a stock Fedora kernel yet or need fake kernel deps for other
> reasons. Is there any fundamental objection to the fake-kernel package
> being integrated by way of an official kernel sub-package? (perhaps even
> selectively buildable and not built by default on e.g. x86?).
Do not want. This is just as easily accomplished by a separate spec that
doesn't clutter up the official kernel spec even further than it already is.
That's fine, it's ok in a separate package. I just wanted to raise it.
A kernel-none package would, however, be potentially amusing to even
relatively sane arches like x86. Install the kernel-none variant, and
you don't get kernel updates via yum, which may be desired, if you're
running your own locally built kernel and don't want the bootloader
constantly being updated to point to the newly installed kernel rpm when
you really want the locally built kernel to keep being the default boot
kernel... But this has no way of working in Anaconda, which is another
reason why I think it has no place in the actual kernel spec.
Good points. I generally add kernel to the excludes line in my x86 yum
configs, which achieves similar but I still think there are similar uses
for this even if that particular one can be handled elsewhere.
For installing, yea, there needs to be a kernel package that at least
supports some targets, which is where this is headed. For example, I see
a general ARMv7 kernel that supports a good subset of targets as the
most likely option in the medium term. I don't see it likely that we'd
have a one size fits all kernel image in the next few weeks :)
I presume
people "installing" on ARM are creating an image on another host, rather
than actually running through an anaconda install.
Right. At the moment, there are scripts to generate a rootfs (and I will
be posting a more up to date rootfs example image with pre-canned kernel
and bits for some targets soon), but the goal is to get to a point:
1). Where the rootfs image can be generated using appliance creation
tools that already exist, since many boards are similarly used.
2). Eventually, where we have support for standard installation. I
suspect that would be using a kernel that supports major systems, but
where if you have something more exotic, you still install the fake
dependency package (after perhaps building an image) on your own.
So would you ACK the importation of such a fake dep package? If it comes
up for debate?
Jon.
2 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
Jon Masters wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 14:15 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 11:14 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>>
>>> What do the kernel maintainers think about having a kernel subpackage
>>> that just provides fake deps as part of the main kernel package?
>> Anyway. To get back to the point...there are some systems that cannot
>> run a stock Fedora kernel yet or need fake kernel deps for other
>> reasons. Is there any fundamental objection to the fake-kernel package
>> being integrated by way of an official kernel sub-package? (perhaps even
>> selectively buildable and not built by default on e.g. x86?).
> Do not want. This is just as easily accomplished by a separate spec that
> doesn't clutter up the official kernel spec even further than it already is.
That's fine, it's ok in a separate package. I just wanted to raise it.
> A kernel-none package would, however, be potentially amusing to even
> relatively sane arches like x86. Install the kernel-none variant, and
> you don't get kernel updates via yum, which may be desired, if you're
> running your own locally built kernel and don't want the bootloader
> constantly being updated to point to the newly installed kernel rpm when
> you really want the locally built kernel to keep being the default boot
> kernel... But this has no way of working in Anaconda, which is another
> reason why I think it has no place in the actual kernel spec.
Good points. I generally add kernel to the excludes line in my x86 yum
configs, which achieves similar but I still think there are similar uses
for this even if that particular one can be handled elsewhere.
Oh, duh. That's saner in that it does require this hack, and it does
leave you with a fallback distro-provided kernel. But in the ARM case,
the distro-provided kernel might not be bootable, so this method just
wastes space and adds a non-functional boot target...
So would you ACK the importation of such a fake dep package? If it
comes
up for debate?
Does it really need to go into the main package repo? Aren't most
secondary arches maintaining a handful of arch-specific bits in their
own tree already anyway? I suppose long-term, and for it to be a
reasonable option for other use cases, it should be in the main repo. I
suppose I could get behind that idea.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod(a)redhat.com
1:59 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:15:15PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Do not want. This is just as easily accomplished by a separate spec
that
doesn't clutter up the official kernel spec even further than it already is.
+1.
Frankly, I've been tired enough having to maintain config files for
ia64, powerpc, sparc, and arm over the last few years when all they need
is kernel-headers. (Note to self, drop ia64 entirely now...) [Note, I
don't mean to sound entirely negative here, but in reality it's an awful
nuisance for nothing, and waiting for the port people to fix it would
just delay my ability to put out updates.]
I'll be posting the split out kernel-noarch spec this week, which should
rectify building kernel-doc and kernel-headers, without needing to go
through the half-hearted rigamarole to do it now.
We can probably cram the fake kernel crud in there for you, but I
definitely don't want it in the main kernel spec. I also don't really
know why you don't just build your sub-arch kernels as packages in your
secondary build system until you get promoted, but that's your decision...
--Kyle
2:09 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 14:59 -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
I'll be posting the split out kernel-noarch spec this week, which
should
rectify building kernel-doc and kernel-headers, without needing to go
through the half-hearted rigamarole to do it now.
Great! Also +1 to considering the fake deps subpackage in there.
We can probably cram the fake kernel crud in there for you, but I
definitely don't want it in the main kernel spec. I also don't really
know why you don't just build your sub-arch kernels as packages in your
secondary build system until you get promoted, but that's your decision...
There are kernel packages being built in the ARM koji and more work will
be done, but it's not as straightforward (yet) as building a single RPM
package for all possible ARM systems people might choose to use. Until
that point, there will be people who can't install the standard kernel
package, need to build their own, and just want the dependencies. Like I
said, most of the main systems will be supportable in a single kernel
RPM in due course, and we can come asking about config changes, etc.
that we need later on to roll this back into the standard kernel.
Another question for you, related to this. David Marlin (dmarlin) is
currently working on the OMAP kernel packages. He's based his SPEC and
sources on F15 and the plan is to basically track the F15 kernel until
such time as we're ready to ask to integrate whatever will be integrated
back into the official kernel package. He's looking at using split-out
kernel config files - can I point him to you and get you to help him
figure out how those work? (he wants to make sure he's able to
regenerate the config files and merge for building, etc.)
Jon.
3:20 p.m.
New subject: [fedora-arm] adding fake-kernel to repository
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:09:55PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> We can probably cram the fake kernel crud in there for you, but
I
> definitely don't want it in the main kernel spec. I also don't really
> know why you don't just build your sub-arch kernels as packages in your
> secondary build system until you get promoted, but that's your decision...
There are kernel packages being built in the ARM koji and more work will
be done, but it's not as straightforward (yet) as building a single RPM
package for all possible ARM systems people might choose to use. Until
that point, there will be people who can't install the standard kernel
package, need to build their own, and just want the dependencies. Like I
said, most of the main systems will be supportable in a single kernel
RPM in due course, and we can come asking about config changes, etc.
that we need later on to roll this back into the standard kernel.
I guess I'm confused by what you are doing. I understand the end result,
but not how you're getting there. Do you have many subarch-dependent
SRPMs or just a bunch of subarch-dependent binary RPMs from a single
package? (I can see why the former would be a problem for you, since
there's no one place to add the empty pseudopackage.)
I'll go look for myself though.
Another question for you, related to this. David Marlin (dmarlin) is
currently working on the OMAP kernel packages. He's based his SPEC and
sources on F15 and the plan is to basically track the F15 kernel until
such time as we're ready to ask to integrate whatever will be integrated
back into the official kernel package. He's looking at using split-out
kernel config files - can I point him to you and get you to help him
figure out how those work? (he wants to make sure he's able to
regenerate the config files and merge for building, etc.)
Yeah, I'm more than happy to answer whatever I can, although the
kernel.spec is mostly tribal knowledge and evolution, so it's entirely
possible no one will know answers. ;-) You may also want talk to the
people who had been maintaining the Xen branch with how they coped with
things changing under them.
--Kyle
4699
days inactive
4699
days old
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
13 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Jarod Wilson -
Jon Masters -
Kyle McMartin -
Matthew Garrett -
Matthew Garrett