Re: [Bug 225969] Merge Review: kernel
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:50:25AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 10/27/2010 11:02 AM, Don Zickus wrote: Not that I feel like arguing to save dangling symlink, what happens in the case when you install kernel-devel-$KERNVER but there is no kernel-$KERNVER installed to match? Does the rpm fail because /lib/modules/$KERNVER doesn't exist? Or are we going to add a dependency to prevent that from happening? I think that in this situation, it is permissable for both kernel and kernel-devel to own /lib/modules/$KERNVER. I'd rather have that duplicate directory ownership than a dangling symlink, and the Packaging Guidelines permit it. I didn't realize rpm would allow it. Let's try it then and see who screams. :-) Cheers, Don ___ kernel mailing list kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
Re: [Bug 225969] Merge Review: kernel
Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) said: kernel.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/kernel-2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64.conf (Should this be marked as %config(noreplace)?) it's versioned, so no ? I think ? I would assume that ld.so.conf.d files aren't really config files in the normal sense. Certainly, they're not intended to actually be user-editable. That being said: $ cat /etc/ld.so.conf.d/kernel-2.6.35.6-45.fc14.x86_64.conf # Placeholder file, no vDSO hwcap entries used in this kernel. If that's the case, why package it at all? Bill ___ kernel mailing list kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
Re: [Bug 225969] Merge Review: kernel
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) said: kernel.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/kernel-2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64.conf (Should this be marked as %config(noreplace)?) it's versioned, so no ? I think ? I would assume that ld.so.conf.d files aren't really config files in the normal sense. Certainly, they're not intended to actually be user-editable. That being said: $ cat /etc/ld.so.conf.d/kernel-2.6.35.6-45.fc14.x86_64.conf # Placeholder file, no vDSO hwcap entries used in this kernel. If that's the case, why package it at all? hah. good point. I think this might be a leftover from when we had Xen. Roland might remember more. Dave ___ kernel mailing list kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
Re: [Bug 225969] Merge Review: kernel
kernel.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/vdso/vdso32-syscall.so
kernel.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/vdso/vdso.so
kernel.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/vdso/vdso32-int80.so
kernel.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section
/lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/vdso/vdso32-syscall.so
kernel.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section
/lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/vdso/vdso.so
kernel.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section
/lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/vdso/vdso32-int80.so
(I don't begin to claim that I understand what's happening here, but I
suspect
that these vdso files server a specific purpose and that these warnings do
not
apply to them.)
I'm going to assume this is to be expected, as they aren't 'real' libraries.
Roland ?
Yes, they would be meaningless if they were there. It would be ~harmless
(just sizeof(Elf{32,64}_Phdr bloat in the vdso image, fine as long as it
doesn't push it over another page) to add it to the vdso linker script,
but it would have no meaning whatsoever.
kernel.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/ld.so.conf.d/kernel-2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64.conf
(Should this be marked as %config(noreplace)?)
it's versioned, so no ? I think ?
I don't really grok with %config(noreplace) means. The file is indeed
versioned. It only lives in /etc because /etc/ld.so.conf.d is where you
put things to get them seen by ldconfig. It could as well be a symlink (of
that same name) to a file living somewhere else (in /lib/modules/V/vdso/ I
guess), if rpm rules like that better.
kernel-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/include/config/fb/via.h
[ ... repeated for several hundred empty kernel .h files ... ]
(I assume that all of these zero length header files are kernel header
files
which are not intended to be exposed/exported to userspace. Perhaps it
makes
sense to iterate through the buildroot at the end of install and delete
all of
the zero length header files? Might speed up the -devel transaction.)
Something in the tree could be #include'ing them, but I don't see anything
from a quick grep. Not sure about this. (They're autogenerated, and their
content varies depending on CONFIG options being set).
They exist to embody the .config state. I think you need all that stuff as
it is to build modules correctly.
I think we can probably just kill all of these.
As long as you can definitely build a kernel module, including all the
kinds of modules systemtap ever wants to build, then sure.
Thanks,
Roland
___
kernel mailing list
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
Re: [Bug 225969] Merge Review: kernel
$ cat /etc/ld.so.conf.d/kernel-2.6.35.6-45.fc14.x86_64.conf # Placeholder file, no vDSO hwcap entries used in this kernel. If that's the case, why package it at all? There's no need for it. We just don't have a way (with .spec magic I know, anyway) to decide at the right time whether we need one or not. The kernel's 'make vdso_install' target either does or doesn't make one. Except AFAIK none ever does at this point, apparently because the Xen support it was there for fell out. There was a time when we thought that the powerpc and/or s390 vDSOs might use the same mechanism too, but apparently they never did try to do that. Thanks, Roland ___ kernel mailing list kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
Re: [Bug 225969] Merge Review: kernel
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:10:23PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: kernel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/build ../../../usr/src/kernels/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64 (It seems odd that /lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/build is packaged in kernel, but the symlink it points to is in kernel-devel. Is there a reason that the /lib/modules/2.6.36-1.fc15.x86_64/build ownership isn't in kernel-devel?) We flip-flopped on this a few years ago. It used to be that way iirc, but I'm not recalling the exact reasoning for why it changed. I think the problem was the -devel package could be installed without a kernel package behind it making it awkward to install a symlink. Even if you just dropped the symlink on the floor, installing the kernel later would never re-create the symlink leaving things broken. IIRC, the dangling symlink was the lesser of two evils. Not that I care either way. Cheers, Don ___ kernel mailing list kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
