Bug#918664: linux-latest: please provide a meta package for a sane architecture-specific default
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 10:50 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Quoting Ben Hutchings (2019-01-08 09:46:43) > > > I know that the right kernel image is not a function of the > > > Debian > > > architecture alone. But this meta-package is not supposed to > > > replace > > > kernel selection for d-i or the like. It is meant to be one > > > central > > > place to encode a sane default mapping in the Debian linux kernel > > > package instead of (poorly) replicating such a mapping in > > > individual > > > packages. > > > > For many architectures there is no single good default - that's the > > main reason why we have multiple flavours. > > But for other architectures there is. > > So this binary package could be built for architectures where a > reasonable > default exists but not for those where it doesn't. Then it wouldn't be safe to depend on it, so how would it be used? > Package: linux-image-default > Architecture: i386, alpha, amd64, arm64, armhf, ia64, m68k, armel, > hppa, powerpc, ppc64, ppc64el, powerpcspe, riscv64, s390x, sparc64 > Depends: > linux-image-686 [i386], Most i386 systems should use 686-pae. But some can't (otherwise we would drop 686). > linux-image-alpha-generic [alpha], Useless for SMP systems. > linux-image-amd64 [amd64], > linux-image-arm64 [arm64], Right. (Although for cloud deployments cloud-amd64 and (proposed) cloud-arm64 may be more suitable.) > linux-image-armmp [armhf], Some armhf systems need armmp-lpae to access all their RAM. > linux-image-itanium [ia64], I think this is rather slow on later Itanium chips. > linux-image-m68k [m68k], > linux-image-marvell [armel], Right. > linux-image-parisc [hppa], I don't think this will run on 64-bit systems. > linux-image-powerpc [powerpc], This won't run on most 64-bit systems (probably the majority). > linux-image-powerpc64 [ppc64], > linux-image-powerpc64le [ppc64el], > linux-image-powerpcspe [powerpcspe], > linux-image-riscv64 [riscv64], > linux-image-s390x [s390x], Right. > linux-image-sparc64 [sparc64] Useless for SMP systems. > Maybe some of the above still has to be removed but do really too few > architectures remain where a sane choice exists? If there is only one sensible choice then we only build one flavour. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Any smoothly functioning technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#918664: linux-latest: please provide a meta package for a sane architecture-specific default
Hi Ben, Quoting Ben Hutchings (2019-01-08 09:46:43) > > I know that the right kernel image is not a function of the Debian > > architecture alone. But this meta-package is not supposed to replace > > kernel selection for d-i or the like. It is meant to be one central > > place to encode a sane default mapping in the Debian linux kernel > > package instead of (poorly) replicating such a mapping in individual > > packages. > > For many architectures there is no single good default - that's the > main reason why we have multiple flavours. But for other architectures there is. So this binary package could be built for architectures where a reasonable default exists but not for those where it doesn't. Package: linux-image-default Architecture: i386, alpha, amd64, arm64, armhf, ia64, m68k, armel, hppa, powerpc, ppc64, ppc64el, powerpcspe, riscv64, s390x, sparc64 Depends: linux-image-686 [i386], linux-image-alpha-generic [alpha], linux-image-amd64 [amd64], linux-image-arm64 [arm64], linux-image-armmp [armhf], linux-image-itanium [ia64], linux-image-m68k [m68k], linux-image-marvell [armel], linux-image-parisc [hppa], linux-image-powerpc [powerpc], linux-image-powerpc64 [ppc64], linux-image-powerpc64le [ppc64el], linux-image-powerpcspe [powerpcspe], linux-image-riscv64 [riscv64], linux-image-s390x [s390x], linux-image-sparc64 [sparc64] Maybe some of the above still has to be removed but do really too few architectures remain where a sane choice exists? Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#918664: linux-latest: please provide a meta package for a sane architecture-specific default
Control: tag -1 wontfix On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 09:20 +0100, Johannes 'josch' Schauer wrote: > Source: linux-latest > Version: 4.17+95 > Severity: wishlist > > Hi, > > please provide an architecture-specific meta package which depends on a > sane default of a kernel image on that architecture. > > For example: > > Package: linux-image > Depends: linux-image-powerpc64 [ppc64], > linux-image-parisc [hppa], > linux-image-armmp [armhf], > linux-image-686 [i386], > ... > > I know that the right kernel image is not a function of the Debian > architecture alone. But this meta-package is not supposed to replace > kernel selection for d-i or the like. It is meant to be one central > place to encode a sane default mapping in the Debian linux kernel > package instead of (poorly) replicating such a mapping in individual > packages. For many architectures there is no single good default - that's the main reason why we have multiple flavours. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Any smoothly functioning technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#918664: linux-latest: please provide a meta package for a sane architecture-specific default
Source: linux-latest Version: 4.17+95 Severity: wishlist Hi, please provide an architecture-specific meta package which depends on a sane default of a kernel image on that architecture. For example: Package: linux-image Depends: linux-image-powerpc64 [ppc64], linux-image-parisc [hppa], linux-image-armmp [armhf], linux-image-686 [i386], ... I know that the right kernel image is not a function of the Debian architecture alone. But this meta-package is not supposed to replace kernel selection for d-i or the like. It is meant to be one central place to encode a sane default mapping in the Debian linux kernel package instead of (poorly) replicating such a mapping in individual packages. Examples: https://sources.debian.org/src/autopkgtest/5.7/tools/autopkgtest-build-qemu/?hl=118#L100 https://sources.debian.org/src/supermin/5.1.19-4/debian/control/?hl=26#L17 https://sources.debian.org/src/live-build/1:20180925/scripts/build/installer_debian-installer/?hl=330#L317 https://sources.debian.org/src/fai/5.7.3/conf/NFSROOT/?hl=64#L49 https://sources.debian.org/src/propellor/5.5.0-2/src/Propellor/Property/Machine.hs/?hl=192#L186 https://sources.debian.org/src/libguestfs/1:1.38.6-2/debian/control/?hl=53#L52 https://sources.debian.org/src/nbdkit/1.8.2-1/debian/control/?hl=25#L23 https://sources.debian.org/src/python-diskimage-builder/2.16.0-1/diskimage_builder/elements/debian-minimal/package-installs.yaml/?hl=3#L1 https://sources.debian.org/src/debootstick/2.1/scripts/create-image/target/pc/packages/?hl=11#L14 I stumbled across this problem because I was about to write some similar logic in my own upstream project mmdebstrap. I thought that instead, such a default mapping from Debian architecture to sensible linux kernel image default should live in the linux-latest source package. Thanks! cheers, josch
