On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:55 PM Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> [+guix-devel, -gnu-linux-libre]
>
> > We are now looking to build Linux kernels using Guix instead of Yocto.
> We
> > can't see any reason why the builds wouldn't be linux-libre. Ideally we'd
> > like our effort to be accepted by upstream guix.
> […]
> > We'd appreciate any pointers to package definition(s) that demonstrate
> best
> > practices to do what we'd like:
> >
> > - We'd like to build custom configured kernels for each patch series in
> the
> > LTS 4.14.72+, 4.19+ and 5.4+.
> > - Currently we have two `base` kernel configs that each 'variant'
> > configuration is applied to for each of a machine 'type' (3 machine
> types)
> > and one of two 'arch'.
> > - Currently we can generate a full kernel `.config` for a
> > kernel+base+variant+arch (we are working on the best way to handle
> > different machines if we are not using Yocto.)
> > - We'd ideally like to generate `vmlinux`, `initrd` and `rootfs` images
> for
> > each.
> >
> > Based on Efraim's post we think the first example is the least friction -
> > "including an actual .config file as a native input to our custom
> kernel".
> > Assume we resolve the machine definition issue. However we're puzzled
> > about how to best distribute the configuration file such that a build of
> > kernel x.y.z can be updated with fixes.
>
> You can either put your config files in a separate git repository and add
> that to
> the native inputs, or you can include the config files in your channel
> repository (or later in Guix itself).
>
Thanks for the suggestion. That gives some assurance.
Could you point to an existing guix (upstream) package that is a best
practice
example of each of those two approaches?
- accessing files from a separate repo
- a guix (upstream) package using other files
> The constraint of users being able to use the std guix commands rather
> than
> > telling them to download a config file or clone a git repo and copy a
> > config file is what is puzzling. Some options we thought about seem
> > inelegant - hence too embarassing to mention - so we'll skip them ;)
> > Leaving....
> >
> > 1) We did wonder if channels[2] were the way to go with each kernel x.y.z
> > in its own branch and config files therein. Could anyone point us to
> > packages that setup and use package specific channels?
>
> Channels handle all the gnarly bits of interacting with git. Users who
> would like to add your channel providing alternative kernels would only
> need to add it to their ~/.config/guix/channels.scm file.
>
Can "add it to their ~/.config/guix/channels.scm file" be scripted as part
of the
package?
Is there an example of a guix (upstream) package that does this?
But since your stated goal is to add these definitions to Guix itself
> you can simply add the kernel variants to linux.scm and include the
> config files in the repository.
>
Current guix/linux.scm seems to take a different approach and cater to a
different use cases - but our understanding of the code is limited and no
doubt flawed.
We think a three step process:
1. Get a package definition working and publicly available.
2. Make any changes to get it accepted as a separate package by guix.
3. Consider whether merging with guix/linux.scm is what linux-libre folks
want
> 2) Should we be aiming to provide a single package with multiple
> parameters
> > or is it better to provide a package for each kernel x.y.z, or some other
> > partitioning. We'd likely want to script the package definition then -
> > correct?
>
> If the main differences between kernel variants are not in the package
> definition but the sources and the configuration file I’d suggest
> defining a procedure that returns a package value. You can then define
> multiple packages in terms of that procedure.
>
Thanks for that suggestion. It seems the issue to resolve is the best
approach for getting those config files to the users machine.
Thanks again
> --
> Ricardo
>
--
Kind Regards
Begley Brothers Inc.
1. *The content of this email is confidential and intended for the
recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any
part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the
sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this
message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake
does not occur in the future.*
2. *This message has been sent as a part of discussion between Begley
Brothers Inc. and the addressee whose name is specified above. Should you
receive this message by mistake, we would be most grateful if you informed
us that the message has been sent to you. In this case, we also ask that
you delete this message from your mailbox, and do not forward it or any
part of it to anyone else. Thank you for your cooperation and
understanding.*
3. *Begley Brothers Inc. puts the security of the client at a high
priority. Therefore, we have put efforts into ensuring that the message is
error and virus-free. Unfortunately, full security of the email cannot be
ensured as, despite our efforts, the data included in emails could be
infected, intercepted, or corrupted. Therefore, the recipient should check
the email for threats with proper software, as the sender does not accept
liability for any damage inflicted by viewing the content of this email.*
4. *The views and opinions included in this email belong to their author
and do not necessarily mirror the views and opinions of the company. Our
employees are obliged not to make any defamatory clauses, infringe, or
authorize infringement of any legal right. Therefore, the company will not
take any liability for such statements included in emails. In case of any
damages or other liabilities arising, employees are fully responsible for
the content of their emails.*
