Re: [PATCH] Enforce kernel-devel-uname-r >= uname-r if any kernel-devel-uname-r - rhbz#1450577

2017-07-24 Thread Nicolas Chauvet 
2017-07-24 16:28 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Leemhuis :
> On 24.07.2017 15:53, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
>>> 2017-07-24 15:28 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer :
 On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
>>
>> And I still don't know what problem you're trying to solve.  Still NAK.
>
> I guess the bugzilla number in the subject is meant as an explanation:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450577
>
> FWIW, I welcome that finally someone is working towards getting this
> fixed, as it seems users have a hard time understanding and handling
> kernel-devel packages.
>
> I didn't look to much into this recently, but I think there might be an
> easier and better solution: Don't provide variant specific kernel-devel
> package at all (like kernel-PAE-devel), just ship one kernel-devel
> package that provides the files for all the kernel variants on the
> architecture in question (IOW: on x86-32 simply ship the files that
> currently are in kernel-PAE-devel in kernel-devel instead & get rid of
> kernel-PAE-devel). Sure, kernel-devel gets bigger. But my gut says it's
> the better solution (but I didn't check and someone should how much it
> grows if we want to go down that route).

Thx Thorsten.

First, I apologize to have send a patch that rely on boolean
dependencies whereas this is not yet allowed as our packaging
standard.
I thought it was the case, and I will resubmit with an appropriate
notice for a preliminary review (until boolean deps are allowed,
hopefully in the f27 timeline).

So trying to sum-up. On fedora, kernel-devel installation can be wrong
in two ways:
- It's not the appropriate variant (PAE,lpae,rt,debug,up,etc)
- Both versions mismatch. (one has kernel from
fedora-kernel-rawhide-nodebug but kernel-devel from f26-updates (so
4.11.10-300.fc26.x86_64 =/ 4.13.0-0.rc1.git4.1.fc27 mismatch).

This patch and bugreport is only meant to address the latter issue, so
that when a user issue the following command, the right kernel-devel
comes along:
dnf update kernel --enablerepo=updates-testing
(this fails to grab the kernel-devel from updates-testing, at least
without the patch)

Like you might have noticed, users could have used the following instead:
dnf update kernel\* --enablerepo=updates-testing
(there it works and even without using kernel\* at all)
But , that's not something one can expect from ours users, (and even
from me when distracted). So there is a need to state the appropriate
requires (which the patch implements), otherwise the failure is
unavoidable.

The former issue can be fixed in tools using kernel-devel
(akmods,dkms,systemtap,other ?) by using the boolean dependencies such
as Suggests: kernel-lpae-devel if kernel-lpae, etc
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474423
The same restriction might apply to boolean dependencies here. So the
plan is to ask for clarification from releng, and implement in the f27
timeline if allowed.

Thx for the review.

-- 
-

Nicolas (kwizart)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [PATCH] Enforce kernel-devel-uname-r >= uname-r if any kernel-devel-uname-r - rhbz#1450577

2017-07-24 Thread Thorsten Leemhuis 
On 24.07.2017 15:53, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
>> 2017-07-24 15:28 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer :
>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
>
> And I still don't know what problem you're trying to solve.  Still NAK.

I guess the bugzilla number in the subject is meant as an explanation:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450577

FWIW, I welcome that finally someone is working towards getting this
fixed, as it seems users have a hard time understanding and handling
kernel-devel packages.

I didn't look to much into this recently, but I think there might be an
easier and better solution: Don't provide variant specific kernel-devel
package at all (like kernel-PAE-devel), just ship one kernel-devel
package that provides the files for all the kernel variants on the
architecture in question (IOW: on x86-32 simply ship the files that
currently are in kernel-PAE-devel in kernel-devel instead & get rid of
kernel-PAE-devel). Sure, kernel-devel gets bigger. But my gut says it's
the better solution (but I didn't check and someone should how much it
grows if we want to go down that route).

CU, knurd
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [PATCH] Enforce kernel-devel-uname-r >= uname-r if any kernel-devel-uname-r - rhbz#1450577

2017-07-24 Thread Josh Boyer 
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
> 2017-07-24 15:28 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer :
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
>>
>> Please add a descriptive changelog to the patch.  People shouldn't
>> have to go somewhere else to see why a change is being made.  I even
>> read the bug and still don't fully understand what problem you're
>> trying to solve.
>>
>>> ---
>>>  kernel.spec | 5 +
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
>>> index 6e2df747..377b71a0 100644
>>> --- a/kernel.spec
>>> +++ b/kernel.spec
>>> @@ -382,6 +382,11 @@ ExclusiveOS: Linux
>>>  %ifnarch %{nobuildarches}
>>>  Requires: kernel-core-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
>>>  Requires: kernel-modules-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
>>> +# Enforce kernel-devel varriant >= uname-r,varriant if installed - 
>>> rhbz#1450577
>>> +# Only needed for fedora kernel
>>> +%if 0%{?fedora}
>>
>> Why is a fedora conditional being added here?  This is only built in
>> Fedora already, and the spec file isn't shared with another downstream
>> directly.
> This is true, however I remember centos armhfp altarch often rebase on
> fedora kernel.

I don't think that's a reason to add that.

>>> +Requires: (kernel-devel-uname-r >= %{KVERREL}%{?variant} if 
>>> kernel-devel-uname-r)
>>
>> Adding this seems to now force this installation of a kernel-devel
> Well, this is not the case, as it's a boolean dependency. It will
> enforce the condition only if there is already a kernel-devel-uname
> variant.

From the packaging guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_dependencies

"Rich/Boolean dependencies
Packages MAY make limited use of the rich (or Boolean) dependency
feature supported in RPM. They MAY be used in Suggests:, Enhances: and
Supplements: dependencies. However, currently they MUST NOT be used in
Requires: or Recommends: dependencies as this will cause issues with
the package updates process."

So you're adding something that isn't allowed.

And I still don't know what problem you're trying to solve.  Still NAK.

josh
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [PATCH] Enforce kernel-devel-uname-r >= uname-r if any kernel-devel-uname-r - rhbz#1450577

2017-07-24 Thread Nicolas Chauvet 
2017-07-24 15:28 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer :
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
>
> Please add a descriptive changelog to the patch.  People shouldn't
> have to go somewhere else to see why a change is being made.  I even
> read the bug and still don't fully understand what problem you're
> trying to solve.
>
>> ---
>>  kernel.spec | 5 +
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
>> index 6e2df747..377b71a0 100644
>> --- a/kernel.spec
>> +++ b/kernel.spec
>> @@ -382,6 +382,11 @@ ExclusiveOS: Linux
>>  %ifnarch %{nobuildarches}
>>  Requires: kernel-core-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
>>  Requires: kernel-modules-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
>> +# Enforce kernel-devel varriant >= uname-r,varriant if installed - 
>> rhbz#1450577
>> +# Only needed for fedora kernel
>> +%if 0%{?fedora}
>
> Why is a fedora conditional being added here?  This is only built in
> Fedora already, and the spec file isn't shared with another downstream
> directly.
This is true, however I remember centos armhfp altarch often rebase on
fedora kernel.

>> +Requires: (kernel-devel-uname-r >= %{KVERREL}%{?variant} if 
>> kernel-devel-uname-r)
>
> Adding this seems to now force this installation of a kernel-devel
Well, this is not the case, as it's a boolean dependency. It will
enforce the condition only if there is already a kernel-devel-uname
variant.

(fixed the typo variant, btw).

Thx


-- 
-

Nicolas (kwizart)
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[PATCH] Enforce kernel-devel-uname-r >= uname-r if any kernel-devel-uname-r - rhbz#1450577

2017-07-24 Thread Nicolas Chauvet 
---
 kernel.spec | 5 +
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
index 6e2df747..377b71a0 100644
--- a/kernel.spec
+++ b/kernel.spec
@@ -382,6 +382,11 @@ ExclusiveOS: Linux
 %ifnarch %{nobuildarches}
 Requires: kernel-core-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
 Requires: kernel-modules-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
+# Enforce kernel-devel varriant >= uname-r,varriant if installed - rhbz#1450577
+# Only needed for fedora kernel
+%if 0%{?fedora}
+Requires: (kernel-devel-uname-r >= %{KVERREL}%{?variant} if 
kernel-devel-uname-r)
+%endif
 %endif
 
 
-- 
2.13.3
___
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org