Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
2007-Aug-16 14:31 UTC
Re: [Fwd: Testing the Current Upstream Kernel]
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 15:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:> did you guys see this discussion on LKML? Should we build the vanilla > kernel (¹) by default during our build process and put it in some > special repo maybe (or even in the main repo?)?http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1742374580386548257 "...we do readily accept bug reports against the latest Fedora kernel..." --Andrew Morton (0:54:38 in the above video) This is probably in reference to Rawhide though, so it may still be useful for Fedora''s stable releases. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>
On 16.08.2007 16:31, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 15:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> did you guys see this discussion on LKML? Should we build the vanilla >> kernel (¹) by default during our build process and put it in some >> special repo maybe (or even in the main repo?)? > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1742374580386548257 > > "...we do readily accept bug reports against the latest Fedora^^> kernel..." > --Andrew Morton (0:54:38 in the above video) > > This is probably in reference to Rawhide though,Well, I suppose at least some kernel developers might not agree with that/might not feel as part of the "we" and will ask people to test a vanilla kernel. So I''d say having them in some repo/rawhide would be nice.> so it may still be > useful for Fedora''s stable releases.Agreed (I not long ago was in the need to the a vanilla kernel and I really wish I could have yum-installed it). Cu thl
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:28:14PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > On 16.08.2007 16:31, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 15:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> did you guys see this discussion on LKML? Should we build the vanilla > >> kernel (¹) by default during our build process and put it in some > >> special repo maybe (or even in the main repo?)? > > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1742374580386548257 > > > > "...we do readily accept bug reports against the latest Fedora > ^^ > > kernel..." > > --Andrew Morton (0:54:38 in the above video) > > > > This is probably in reference to Rawhide though, > > Well, I suppose at least some kernel developers might not agree with > that/might not feel as part of the "we" and will ask people to test a > vanilla kernel. So I''d say having them in some repo/rawhide would be nice. The work that Jarod did to get vanilla builds possible was the only real major thing holding us back from doing this, now the only remaining piece of the puzzle is where do kernel-vanilla packages belong? Once we have that figured out, regular builds and pushes are a breeze. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On 16.08.2007 18:37, Dave Jones wrote:> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:28:14PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 16.08.2007 16:31, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 15:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > >> did you guys see this discussion on LKML? Should we build the vanilla > > >> kernel (¹) by default during our build process and put it in some > > >> special repo maybe (or even in the main repo?)? > > > > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1742374580386548257 > > > > > > "...we do readily accept bug reports against the latest Fedora > > ^^ > > > kernel..." > > > --Andrew Morton (0:54:38 in the above video) > > > > > > This is probably in reference to Rawhide though, > > > > Well, I suppose at least some kernel developers might not agree with > > that/might not feel as part of the "we" and will ask people to test a > > vanilla kernel. So I''d say having them in some repo/rawhide would be nice. > > The work that Jarod did to get vanilla builds possible was the only > real major thing holding us back from doing this,Fully agreed.> now the only remaining > piece of the puzzle is where do kernel-vanilla packages belong?Yeah, that''s what I meant. We mainly have three choices afaics: * a repo on a account on people.redhat.com / people.fedoraproject.org * directly from koji (e.g. build the vanilla kernel, but don''t push it to the proper repos) * in the proper repo I''m unsure myself what the best place. I currently tend a bit to put it in the main repos as that''s a service I suppose some users will appreciate. We could close all bugs that are reported specifically against kernel-vanilla with a "report upstream, that''s why we ship this kernel". But on the other hand: Some bugs might show up in other packages from Fedora when the software is running under the vanilla kernel. Some users then might say "if you ship it you need to support it". Sometimes it might make sense to fix it, but sometimes it might require kernel-chages, which would not work together with the "vanilla" idea. Maybe we should just try on rawhide first and look if many of such bugs show up?> Once we have that figured out, regular builds and pushes are a breeze.Should we move this discussion to fedora-devel instead, so everyone can participate? Cu knurd
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:59:29PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > We mainly have three choices afaics: > > * a repo on a account on people.redhat.com / people.fedoraproject.org forget p.r.c, it has so many issues it''s not worth the time to fight it. p.fp.o has a number of advantages over it, and over time, I''ll be moving my existing stuff from the former to the latter. > * directly from koji (e.g. build the vanilla kernel, but don''t push it > to the proper repos) not thrilled with this idea. > * in the proper repo Hmm. This would be great, but I think we may get some pushback on this one. (Especially as kernel rpms are so big). I''m thinking that a repo on people.fedoraproject.org is probably the best of the bunch. > Maybe we should just try on rawhide first and look if many of such bugs > show up? > > > Once we have that figured out, regular builds and pushes are a breeze. > > Should we move this discussion to fedora-devel instead, so everyone can > participate? I think most of the concerned parties (rel-eng, infrastructure etc) are represented on this list already. but I''ve no objection. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:59:29PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >=20 > > * in the proper repo >=20 > Hmm. This would be great, but I think we may get some pushback on this > one. (Especially as kernel rpms are so big). >=20 > I''m thinking that a repo on people.fedoraproject.org is probably > the best of the bunch.I kinda like ''in the proper repo'' myself, but I''d have to agree a separate repo is probably best.> > Maybe we should just try on rawhide first and look if many of such bugs > > show up? > >=20 > > > Once we have that figured out, regular builds and pushes are a breeze. > >=20 > > Should we move this discussion to fedora-devel instead, so everyone can > > participate? > =20 > I think most of the concerned parties (rel-eng, infrastructure etc) are > represented on this list already. but I''ve no objection.Note that we can''t currently build kernel and kernel-vanilla in the same rpmbuild pass. Further changes to the spec would be needed to make that doable, but if they aren''t going in the official repo, perhaps we don''t want to do that anyway. --=20 Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com
On 16.08.2007 22:41, Jarod Wilson wrote:> [...] > Note that we can''t currently build kernel and kernel-vanilla in the same > rpmbuild pass. Further changes to the spec would be needed to make that > doable, [...]Just wondering: Would that be much work or more something like ~15 minutes of work? CU thl
On 16.08.2007 19:27, Dave Jones wrote:> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:59:29PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > * in the proper repo > Hmm. This would be great, but I think we may get some pushback on this > one. (Especially as kernel rpms are so big).Just wondering: What''s "big" here round about? We are talking about round about 20 - 21 MByte per kernel (kernel + devel) afaics; would we ship all flavors (PAE) as vanilla? Maybe most, but not all (xen for example). /me does some math: ix86: default, PAE x86_64: default ppc: default, SMP, kdump Makes 6 kernels, e.g. 120 MByte. If someone puts up a new game for review that needs a 120 MByte data-package would we send him away? No we wouldn''t. So why not ship the vanilla kernel in the proper repos? Ohh, sorry, I forgot the debuginfo packages. Ouch, they are 200 MByte in size. Well, that becomes a problem, but:> I''m thinking that a repo on people.fedoraproject.org is probably > the best of the bunch.Which has a 150**MByte Quota iirc -- so you can''t ship the debuginfo stuff there either. And non of the other Kernels that you ship via your p.r.c stuff (well, as long as you don''t get more space offered, which I assume might be possible).> > [...] > > Should we move this discussion to fedora-devel instead, so everyone can > > participate? > I think most of the concerned parties (rel-eng, infrastructure etc) are > represented on this list already. but I''ve no objection.If they don''t speak up here sooner or later I''ll start a thread in fedora-devel ;-) CU knurd
> On 16.08.2007 22:41, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > [...] > > Note that we can''t currently build kernel and kernel-vanilla in the same > > rpmbuild pass. Further changes to the spec would be needed to make that > > doable, [...] > > Just wondering: Would that be much work or more something like ~15 > minutes of work?It''s fundamentally unlike the things that are now done in one rpm build. i.e., it is not the same source.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 07:05:35AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 16.08.2007 19:27, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:59:29PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > * in the proper repo > > Hmm. This would be great, but I think we may get some pushback on this > > one. (Especially as kernel rpms are so big). > > Just wondering: What''s "big" here round about? We are talking about > round about 20 - 21 MByte per kernel (kernel + devel) afaics; would we > ship all flavors (PAE) as vanilla? Maybe most, but not all (xen for > example). No xen, correct. > Ohh, sorry, I forgot the debuginfo packages. Ouch, they are 200 MByte in > size. Well, that becomes a problem Yeah, that''s the elephant in the room. > > I''m thinking that a repo on people.fedoraproject.org is probably > > the best of the bunch. > > Which has a 150**MByte Quota iirc -- so you can''t ship the debuginfo > stuff there either. And non of the other Kernels that you ship via your > p.r.c stuff (well, as long as you don''t get more space offered, which I > assume might be possible). p.r.c doesn''t have a huge quota either. (Which is why the repos I have there now don''t have debuginfo either). Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk