Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
On Fri, 2020-05-29 at 14:37 +0200, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 06:31:46 -0700 Mattia Dongili > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:14:13PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:20:34AM -0700, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Let's see where I get to in integrating the UML build with > > > > src:linux, > > > > ... > … > > I am taking a look at this. But before going any further, Ritesh, > would > you be willing to taking care of UML within src:linux ? > If yes, I hope* to send a MR the next week. > Yes. It'd be ideal to have it there. But I have never looked at building the binary that way. Since I took maintenance of the package, I only targeted to keep it up-to-date. And given that it is built from the same Debian Linux source package, there's nothing else to worry for, in terms of patches and security fixes. The immediate benefit I see with UML being built with the rest of the linux packages, is that on every new update/upload of Linux, UML will be generated. Currently, that is not the case, when it is built independently. > Cheers, > > -- Santiago > > * But considering current conditions, this could take a little bit > longer. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 06:31:46 -0700 Mattia Dongili wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:14:13PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:20:34AM -0700, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > >... > > > Let's see where I get to in integrating the UML build with src:linux, > > >... … I am taking a look at this. But before going any further, Ritesh, would you be willing to taking care of UML within src:linux ? If yes, I hope* to send a MR the next week. Cheers, -- Santiago * But considering current conditions, this could take a little bit longer. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:14:13PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:20:34AM -0700, Mattia Dongili wrote: > >... > > Let's see where I get to in integrating the UML build with src:linux, > >... > > If you need help let me know. > > This looks like less than a day of work to me, and I would not mind > doing it myself if you aren't already working on it. Sure, I'll let you know. Thanks for the offer. -- mattia :wq!
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:20:34AM -0700, Mattia Dongili wrote: >... > Let's see where I get to in integrating the UML build with src:linux, >... If you need help let me know. This looks like less than a day of work to me, and I would not mind doing it myself if you aren't already working on it. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:20:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 20:55 +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > On Thu, September 15, 2016 7:16 pm, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > > I'm open to the possibility of folding this into src:linux, if someone > > > in (or joining) the kernel team can take responsibility for maintaining > > > it. Now that all the userland tools are built from src:linux, it might > > > not be that hard to add UML. > > > > There's a mini-team (Ritesh and me) taking care of UML today. > > What is the expectation for that someone? > > Maintain the configuration, investigate and fix build failures, that > sort of thing. Sure. :) I can handle that much. Let's see where I get to in integrating the UML build with src:linux, then we can talk. Thanks -- mattia :wq! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 20:55 +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote: > On Thu, September 15, 2016 7:16 pm, Ben Hutchings wrote: > ... > > > > > > I'm open to the possibility of folding this into src:linux, if someone > > in (or joining) the kernel team can take responsibility for maintaining > > it. Now that all the userland tools are built from src:linux, it might > > not be that hard to add UML. > > There's a mini-team (Ritesh and me) taking care of UML today. > What is the expectation for that someone? Maintain the configuration, investigate and fix build failures, that sort of thing. > I'm willing to step forward, but I'm also aware I have limits in my > availability. > > > > > There are a few issues I can immediately see: > > > > - UML binaries can't be built using the existing makefile rules for > > linux-image packages, as they need different package names, > > installation paths, and maintainer scripts. This would need entirely > > new rules. > > > > - The current base config (debian/config/config) might not make any > > sense for UML (but then, maybe all the irrelevant stuff will simply be > > disabled automatically). > > Yes, these both need to be solved. To be fair I haven't had time to look > into the specifics but that's what's next. > > > > > - I'm a little concerned about the possibility of build breakage in UML > > that would then block everything else built from src:linux. Does UML > > break often? > > I haven't been tracking RCs, but stable releases aren't giving many > problems (a recent one was that then nvram module broke, but that's a case > of a module that doesn't make sense for UML and shouldn't be enabled to > start with). > From looking at the UML upstream mailing lists, there haven't been many > big breakages in recent times. Good. Since we do upload release candidates to experimental, it might become necessary to fix build failures earlier. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
On Thu, September 15, 2016 7:16 pm, Ben Hutchings wrote: ... > > I'm open to the possibility of folding this into src:linux, if someone > in (or joining) the kernel team can take responsibility for maintaining > it. Now that all the userland tools are built from src:linux, it might > not be that hard to add UML. There's a mini-team (Ritesh and me) taking care of UML today. What is the expectation for that someone? I'm willing to step forward, but I'm also aware I have limits in my availability. > There are a few issues I can immediately see: > > - UML binaries can't be built using the existing makefile rules for > linux-image packages, as they need different package names, > installation paths, and maintainer scripts. This would need entirely > new rules. > > - The current base config (debian/config/config) might not make any > sense for UML (but then, maybe all the irrelevant stuff will simply be > disabled automatically). Yes, these both need to be solved. To be fair I haven't had time to look into the specifics but that's what's next. > - I'm a little concerned about the possibility of build breakage in UML > that would then block everything else built from src:linux. Does UML > break often? I haven't been tracking RCs, but stable releases aren't giving many problems (a recent one was that then nvram module broke, but that's a case of a module that doesn't make sense for UML and shouldn't be enabled to start with). >From looking at the UML upstream mailing lists, there haven't been many big breakages in recent times. -- mattia :wq!
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 17:09 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Package: user-mode-linux > Version: 4.7-1um-1 > Severity: normal > > A separate source package for user-mode-linux made sense 15 years > ago, > when a huge patch of non-upstreamed kernel code existed for user- > mode-linux. > > What is left today in the user-mode-linux source package are 6 small > patches to UML-specific code (2 or 3 of them look Debian-specific) > and the kernel configurations for i386 and amd64. > > There doesn't seem to be any good reason left for a separate source > package, and this would also bring DSA fixes for stretch kernels > automatically to the user-mode-linux kernel. I'm open to the possibility of folding this into src:linux, if someone in (or joining) the kernel team can take responsibility for maintaining it. Now that all the userland tools are built from src:linux, it might not be that hard to add UML. There are a few issues I can immediately see: - UML binaries can't be built using the existing makefile rules for linux-image packages, as they need different package names, installation paths, and maintainer scripts. This would need entirely new rules. - The current base config (debian/config/config) might not make any sense for UML (but then, maybe all the irrelevant stuff will simply be disabled automatically). - I'm a little concerned about the possibility of build breakage in UML that would then block everything else built from src:linux. Does UML break often? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
Thanks for opening this bug. Building UML as part of the regular kernel release has been on my todo list for years now (including making a real attempt with patch long ago - didn't get much attention then). My employer will soon sponsor some work in this area, I hope I can get a step closer at addressing this bug then. -- mattia :wq > On 2016/09/15, at 7:09, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Package: user-mode-linux > Version: 4.7-1um-1 > Severity: normal > > A separate source package for user-mode-linux made sense 15 years ago, > when a huge patch of non-upstreamed kernel code existed for user-mode-linux. > > What is left today in the user-mode-linux source package are 6 small > patches to UML-specific code (2 or 3 of them look Debian-specific) > and the kernel configurations for i386 and amd64. > > There doesn't seem to be any good reason left for a separate source > package, and this would also bring DSA fixes for stretch kernels > automatically to the user-mode-linux kernel. >
Bug#837920: user-mode-linux should be built directly by src:linux
Package: user-mode-linux Version: 4.7-1um-1 Severity: normal A separate source package for user-mode-linux made sense 15 years ago, when a huge patch of non-upstreamed kernel code existed for user-mode-linux. What is left today in the user-mode-linux source package are 6 small patches to UML-specific code (2 or 3 of them look Debian-specific) and the kernel configurations for i386 and amd64. There doesn't seem to be any good reason left for a separate source package, and this would also bring DSA fixes for stretch kernels automatically to the user-mode-linux kernel.