On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:17 AM Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:40:53AM +1000, Begley Brothers Inc wrote: > > 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 > > > > Do you mean something like this? It's a container instead of a full disk > image but it seems close enough. The 'gn' namespace is local to that > repo and 'gnu' and 'guix' are from the upstream guix repo. > > http://git.genenetwork.org/guix-bioinformatics/guix-bioinformatics/src/branch/master/gn/services/bnw-container.scm Thanks for sharing that definition - very interesting. It seems gexp are something to be mastered. We're trying to disentangle ourselves from containers. Guix gets us a big step in that direction, and that definitions shows some of its power. Much appreciated. -- 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.*
