Hi, > 1) using a project manifest format (github.com/kernkonzept/manifest) aligns > well with the repo tool (gerrit.googlesource.com/git-repo), which is used > by AOSP and several other large projects consisting of 100+ sub-projects, > each with its own commit history, etc. In practice, we could explore > applying this tool for version management in our current project as well. > repo also has broader documentation and more usage examples available > online, which could be beneficial. > > 2) with minimal changes, the manifest could also be used to create local > versions of repositories. For example, the following command can be used to > initialize a local mirror based on a manifest (my rpersonal example): > repo init --mirror -b repotool_support -u > https://github.com/EugeniyKozhanov/l4re_manifest.git > repo sync -j9 >
Indeed ham is modeled after repo and we try to keep the format that ham accepts somewhat compatible with repo where that's feasible. So one should be able to use our manifests with repo, though we don't test it ourselves right now as far as I am aware. Ham has some additional features which are primarily valuable for our internal use and dealing with specific QA / CI use- cases and customer specific requirements. > […] > *P.S.* It's possible that *Hammer* is also capable of doing all of this. > But I must admit — even after trying to understand its philosophy, I found > it very difficult to use without extensive documentation, examples, or > community support. I even had to recall some long-forgotten Perl skills, > which I was really hoping to avoid. I worry that many newcomers might be > discouraged from even starting with it if they can’t easily understand how > it works or install the missing dependencies on their systems ( > https://github.com/EugeniyKozhanov/ham/pull/1/files). Thanks for that valuable input! We might consider switching the explanations to `repo` in the tutorials, if people find it easier to use and are more comfortable with that tool. I'll bring it up with our release engineers. Best regards, - Marcus > > Thanks! > > Best regards, > > Am Do., 15. Mai 2025 um 00:34 Uhr schrieb Richard Clark < > richard.cl...@coheretechnology.us>: > > > Marcus, > > > > I, for one, rather than having to learn yet-another-tool that doesn't > > quite do what I want, would rather that > > you have a fully-blessed-and-tested release all rolled up in a tar (or > > zip) file for download. You could even have > > a git repo just for the tar files. One caveat, being that it must contain > > ALL the repos and possible little pieces > > that could possibly go with it. One thing I hate about git is sub-repos > > that get lost or are not pulled down and > > cause severe headaches trying to match versions. Like lwip, or > > virtio_switch, or any of the other couple dozen > > packages that don't get pulled down with the new ham build process. I'd > > like to be able to go to one place, > > use a command I already know, and get a fully functional, fully populated, > > "blessed" version. You do have your > > old downloads site with a tgz file, but even that doesn't contain all the > > packages any more. This is the frustrating part. > > I need a way to get a snapshot of everything that could possibly go > > together in a release whether I need it or not, because > > some day I will need it and then the version I need will no longer be > > available. So, not a "demo" or "example" > > version, but a full-source-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink version. > > > > > > Thank you for considering our opinions! > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marcus Hähnel <supp...@kernkonzept.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 10:53 AM > > To: Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk>; l4-hackers@os.inf.tu-dresden.de > > Subject: Re: Configuration, component and repository versioning (was Re: > > Upgrade issues. VM won't start.) > > > > On Mon, 2025-05-12 at 22:37 +0200, Paul Boddie wrote: > > > On Monday, 12 May 2025 15:09:52 CEST Marcus Hähnel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 11:25 +0000, Richard Clark wrote: > > > > > > > > > But that brings me to a bigger question. > > > > > How do I fetch only Long-Term-Support or Fully-Tested-and-Blessed > > > > > versions? Github is woefully lacking in proper version support. > > > > > I can't send random untested code to my customers. > > > > > > > > All code we push to Github went through our internal QA process, > > > > running compile checks for all our supported architectures as well > > > > as an extensive test suite on different platforms and > > > > configurations. So from that point of view I would say you can > > > > consider all code pushed to Github as “Fully-Tested-and-Blessed”. > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about quality assurance for people > > > wanting to provide solutions for paying customers, but I have > > > personally wondered how I might successfully and conveniently > > > reproduce repository configurations when creating new L4Re development > > environments. > > > > > > For example, if I decide to work on support for a new board, I might > > > want to replicate the L4Re configuration I have been using for another > > > board. Starting from scratch, it was possible to use the ham tool, but > > > despite it apparently maintaining version details for the different > > > repositories, it wasn't particularly clear how one might preserve or > > > export that metadata for further use. > > > > > > I now see that there is another tool involved: > > > > > > https://l4re.org/getting_started/bob.html > > > > > > Although that doesn't seem to replace the ham tool: > > > > > > https://l4re.org/getting_started/make.html > > > > > > Naturally, one might say that this is the point at which anyone > > > serious-enough about using L4Re would get in touch with Kernkonzept > > > and start talking business, but such a lack of clarity tends to > > > suggest that either there aren't particularly adequate solutions for > > > such fundamental needs or that any adequate solutions that may exist > > > aren't for people merely investigating or evaluating the technology. > > > > > > Again, it isn't my concern if there's a business decision involved > > > that everybody feels comfortable with, and if there's a steady stream > > > of interested customers that seems to justify such a decision, but I > > > could easily see potential users going elsewhere if the answer to > > > simple questions is "talk to us". Even in reasonably large > > > organisations, hitting an approval barrier that "talk to us" or > > > "register your interest" represents can be a strong disincentive, > > especially if other solutions exist. > > > > > > I accept that my opinion isn't important, however, since my own > > > activities are confined to my own interests and driven by a general > > > belief that L4Re represents a reasonable foundation for certain kinds > > > of systems. That there isn't exactly much of a public community around > > > L4Re could also be regarded as a disincentive for potential adopters, > > which is unfortunate. > > > > > > Paul > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > thank you very much for your thoughtful message — it's really appreciated. > > > > First of all: your opinion absolutely matters. The input from users like > > you, who engage deeply and share candid feedback, helps us make L4Re > > better. While we are aware that L4Re is still quite niche and the community > > small, we want to support it as best we can and would love to see it grow. > > > > I think you're raising a different, but equally important, point compared > > to what Richard was asking. My original response focused on the idea of > > providing a fully tested release for a specific combination of software > > configuration and hardware, which is understandably difficult for us to > > maintain as part of the open-source offering given our limited resources. > > > > Your concern — about being able to reproduce a known working state of your > > development environment — is much more fundamental. You're right: this > > should be straightforward, and if it's not, then it's something we want to > > improve. Ease of use and accessibility are important to us, and sometimes > > we’re just too close to the system to see where friction arises — so thank > > you again for pointing this out. > > > > To clarify one key point: we don’t deliberately withhold features or > > usability improvements from the open-source version of L4Re to push people > > into commercial contact. That’s not our business philosophy. In fact, that > > would go directly against our goal of getting L4Re into more hands and > > making it easier to work with. > > > > Some of the convenience features — like release tagging — do exist in our > > customer repositories, but it’s more of a workflow habit than a conscious > > decision to exclude them from GitHub. No one had brought up the need for > > that kind of reproducibility in the open repo so far — and now that you > > have, let’s fix it. > > > > Would something like weekly tags on GitHub help you? For example, a tag > > like `l4re-2025-05-14` that you could use with `ham checkout` to reproduce > > that specific state? > > > > Also, ham already supports pinned revisions in the manifest (`revision` > > attribute in `project` tags), so you can share a complete and reproducible > > state that way as well. But I agree that this could be made more convenient. > > > > One possible improvement could be a `ham create-pinned-manifest` > > sub-command that generates such a manifest from your current state. That’s > > not trivial — it would require resolving different remotes and checking > > that all commits are actually reachable in one of the remotes — but it’s > > definitely doable. If you're interested, feel free to open a proposal or > > even an issue on the ham GitHub repository — we’d love to hear your > > thoughts or collaborate on a solution. > > > > Would any of these ideas help in your workflow? Do you have something else > > in mind? We're always happy to improve L4Re together with the people who > > use it. > > > > Best regards, > > > > - Marcus Hähnel > > Principal Engineering Lead > > > > > > -- > > +++ Register now for our workshop “Get to know L4Re in 3 days” on > > +++ October 28–30. Learn to design and deploy secure system > > architectures for your product with L4Re: > > https://www.kernkonzept.com/workshop-getting-started-with-l4re/ +++ > > > > --- > > > > Kernkonzept GmbH > > Sitz: Dresden > > HRB 31129 > > Geschäftsführer: Dr.-Ing. Michael Hohmuth > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > l4-hackers mailing list -- l4-hackers@os.inf.tu-dresden.de To unsubscribe > > send an email to l4-hackers-le...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de > > _______________________________________________ > > l4-hackers mailing list -- l4-hackers@os.inf.tu-dresden.de > > To unsubscribe send an email to l4-hackers-le...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de > > -- +++ Register now for our workshop “Get to know L4Re in 3 days” on October 28–30. Learn to design and deploy secure system architectures for your product with L4Re: https://www.kernkonzept.com/workshop-getting-started-with-l4re/ +++ --- Kernkonzept GmbH Sitz: Dresden HRB 31129 Geschäftsführer: Dr.-Ing. Michael Hohmuth _______________________________________________ l4-hackers mailing list -- l4-hackers@os.inf.tu-dresden.de To unsubscribe send an email to l4-hackers-le...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de
