Re: [PATCH] Documentation/Changes: phase out Changes file that hasn't changed

2013-07-24 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 07/23/13 17:32, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Rob Landley  wrote:
>> On 07/23/2013 05:57:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:55AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
 Looking at the bigger picture, the need for this file has simply
 passed.  It was trying to detail required versions of userspace
 packages, in order to cater to hand-crafted systems.  But now the
 majority of users get their userspace all at once from some kind
 of distro, and we are probably a lot more serious about avoiding
 breaking userspace than we were a dozen years ago.
>>
>>
>> You're right, there's no such thing as "embedded linux", nobody creates
>> their own hand-crafted systems, or assembles cross-compiling environments to
>> target hardware other than x86. That's crazy talk.
> 
> Aside from the obvious sarcasm, what are you trying to say here?   The above
> seems like a classic strawman argument to me, since _none_ of the above are
> things that I have said or implied.   And if pressed, I can give many counter
> examples to drive that point home.  Do I really need to?
> 
>>
>>> Is there any file describing the needed tools (and minimum versions) to
>>> _build_ the kernel? I agree that trying to describe such for the run-time
>>> userspace does not belong to the kernel tree, but the required/supported
>>> versions of build tools should be still maybe documented...
>>
>>
>> Documentation/changes _is_ the file that describes the kernel's build-time
>> prerequisites. It hasn't changed in a while because we've been maintaining
>> backwards compatability, especially for several non-x86 targets where it's
>> fiddly to get newer toolchain versions.
> 
> See the mail from hpa --- what may be the "latest" for some less common
> arch may also be simply too old for another arch.  Hence this kind of stuff
> needs to be in an arch specific file, let alone not in a mis-named "Changes"
> file.
> 
>>
>> (Personally I use the last GPLv2 releases of each package, so gcc 4.2.1,
>> binutils 2.17, make 3.81, and busybox.)
> 
> And this works on every arch that linux supports?
> 
>>
>> I agree squashfs and such aren't build time prerequisites. It might make
>> more sense to move some of these to menuconfig text for the appropriate
>> option. But that's not the same as not documenting it at all, and "this
>> document has been true for a long time and remains true, therefore we must
>> discard it" strikes me as a really weird document retention criteria.
> 
> Again, a strawman.  You suggest I said the above with your "this document..."
> quote, but I never said anything like that, and it totally mis-represents why 
> I
> suggested we should remove it.
> 
> Lets move forward from here and not descend into arguing over details.
> 
> To that end, if we create a required-packages.txt that covers the generic
> stuff like "make" version, and then the arch specific stuff (in arch specific
> files) for key stuff like gcc version, and gas version, etc, would you not
> see that as an improvement over what is currently in the mis-named and
> largely abandoned Changes file?

Yes, a list of required packages with their locations (URLs) and other
metadata would be both Good and Sufficient IMO.

Thanks.


-- 
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] Documentation/Changes: phase out Changes file that hasn't changed

2013-07-23 Thread Paul Gortmaker
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Aaro Koskinen  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 06:10:01PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 07/23/2013 05:57:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>> >Is there any file describing the needed tools (and minimum versions) to
>> >_build_ the kernel? I agree that trying to describe such for the run-time
>> >userspace does not belong to the kernel tree, but the required/supported
>> >versions of build tools should be still maybe documented...
>>
>> Documentation/changes _is_ the file that describes the kernel's
>> build-time prerequisites.
>
> So, in that case the file should not be deleted.

Or, we could create a real required-packages.txt that isn't a decade out
of date (and poorly named), and have that in turn reference the arch
specific files with the arch specific data.

C'mon folks, have an open mind here.   Put yourself in the perspective
of the new user, and the issues that he/she faces.  Try and forget the
knowledge that you implicitly have gained of linux over time.   Pointing
these new users at this ancient Changes file is a good way to simply
drive them away.

We can do better.  I know we can.  And I know we all want that exact
same thing once we cut away all the BS.

Thanks,
Paul.
---

>
> A.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] Documentation/Changes: phase out Changes file that hasn't changed

2013-07-23 Thread Aaro Koskinen
Hi,

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 06:10:01PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 07/23/2013 05:57:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> >Is there any file describing the needed tools (and minimum versions) to
> >_build_ the kernel? I agree that trying to describe such for the run-time
> >userspace does not belong to the kernel tree, but the required/supported
> >versions of build tools should be still maybe documented...
> 
> Documentation/changes _is_ the file that describes the kernel's
> build-time prerequisites.

So, in that case the file should not be deleted.

A.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] Documentation/Changes: phase out Changes file that hasn't changed

2013-07-23 Thread Paul Gortmaker
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Rob Landley  wrote:
> On 07/23/2013 05:57:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:55AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> > Looking at the bigger picture, the need for this file has simply
>> > passed.  It was trying to detail required versions of userspace
>> > packages, in order to cater to hand-crafted systems.  But now the
>> > majority of users get their userspace all at once from some kind
>> > of distro, and we are probably a lot more serious about avoiding
>> > breaking userspace than we were a dozen years ago.
>
>
> You're right, there's no such thing as "embedded linux", nobody creates
> their own hand-crafted systems, or assembles cross-compiling environments to
> target hardware other than x86. That's crazy talk.

Aside from the obvious sarcasm, what are you trying to say here?   The above
seems like a classic strawman argument to me, since _none_ of the above are
things that I have said or implied.   And if pressed, I can give many counter
examples to drive that point home.  Do I really need to?

>
>> Is there any file describing the needed tools (and minimum versions) to
>> _build_ the kernel? I agree that trying to describe such for the run-time
>> userspace does not belong to the kernel tree, but the required/supported
>> versions of build tools should be still maybe documented...
>
>
> Documentation/changes _is_ the file that describes the kernel's build-time
> prerequisites. It hasn't changed in a while because we've been maintaining
> backwards compatability, especially for several non-x86 targets where it's
> fiddly to get newer toolchain versions.

See the mail from hpa --- what may be the "latest" for some less common
arch may also be simply too old for another arch.  Hence this kind of stuff
needs to be in an arch specific file, let alone not in a mis-named "Changes"
file.

>
> (Personally I use the last GPLv2 releases of each package, so gcc 4.2.1,
> binutils 2.17, make 3.81, and busybox.)

And this works on every arch that linux supports?

>
> I agree squashfs and such aren't build time prerequisites. It might make
> more sense to move some of these to menuconfig text for the appropriate
> option. But that's not the same as not documenting it at all, and "this
> document has been true for a long time and remains true, therefore we must
> discard it" strikes me as a really weird document retention criteria.

Again, a strawman.  You suggest I said the above with your "this document..."
quote, but I never said anything like that, and it totally mis-represents why I
suggested we should remove it.

Lets move forward from here and not descend into arguing over details.

To that end, if we create a required-packages.txt that covers the generic
stuff like "make" version, and then the arch specific stuff (in arch specific
files) for key stuff like gcc version, and gas version, etc, would you not
see that as an improvement over what is currently in the mis-named and
largely abandoned Changes file?

Paul.
--


>
> Rob--
>
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] Documentation/Changes: phase out Changes file that hasn't changed

2013-07-23 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 07/23/13 16:10, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 07/23/2013 05:57:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:55AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> > Looking at the bigger picture, the need for this file has simply
>> > passed.  It was trying to detail required versions of userspace
>> > packages, in order to cater to hand-crafted systems.  But now the
>> > majority of users get their userspace all at once from some kind
>> > of distro, and we are probably a lot more serious about avoiding
>> > breaking userspace than we were a dozen years ago.
> 
> You're right, there's no such thing as "embedded linux", nobody creates their 
> own hand-crafted systems, or assembles cross-compiling environments to target 
> hardware other than x86. That's crazy talk.
> 
>> Is there any file describing the needed tools (and minimum versions) to
>> _build_ the kernel? I agree that trying to describe such for the run-time
>> userspace does not belong to the kernel tree, but the required/supported
>> versions of build tools should be still maybe documented...
> 
> Documentation/changes _is_ the file that describes the kernel's build-time 
> prerequisites. It hasn't changed in a while because we've been maintaining 
> backwards compatability, especially for several non-x86 targets where it's 
> fiddly to get newer toolchain versions.

and if this file is removed, I'll just have to refer to it in older kernel 
releases
to at least get hints about what tools to use, where to find them, and what
used to be the version requirements

> (Personally I use the last GPLv2 releases of each package, so gcc 4.2.1, 
> binutils 2.17, make 3.81, and busybox.)
> 
> I agree squashfs and such aren't build time prerequisites. It might make more 
> sense to move some of these to menuconfig text for the appropriate option. 
> But that's not the same as not documenting it at all, and "this document has 
> been true for a long time and remains true, therefore we must discard it" 
> strikes me as a really weird document retention criteria.



-- 
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] Documentation/Changes: phase out Changes file that hasn't changed

2013-07-23 Thread Rob Landley

On 07/23/2013 05:57:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:55AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> Looking at the bigger picture, the need for this file has simply
> passed.  It was trying to detail required versions of userspace
> packages, in order to cater to hand-crafted systems.  But now the
> majority of users get their userspace all at once from some kind
> of distro, and we are probably a lot more serious about avoiding
> breaking userspace than we were a dozen years ago.


You're right, there's no such thing as "embedded linux", nobody creates  
their own hand-crafted systems, or assembles cross-compiling  
environments to target hardware other than x86. That's crazy talk.


Is there any file describing the needed tools (and minimum versions)  
to
_build_ the kernel? I agree that trying to describe such for the  
run-time
userspace does not belong to the kernel tree, but the  
required/supported

versions of build tools should be still maybe documented...


Documentation/changes _is_ the file that describes the kernel's  
build-time prerequisites. It hasn't changed in a while because we've  
been maintaining backwards compatability, especially for several  
non-x86 targets where it's fiddly to get newer toolchain versions.


(Personally I use the last GPLv2 releases of each package, so gcc  
4.2.1, binutils 2.17, make 3.81, and busybox.)


I agree squashfs and such aren't build time prerequisites. It might  
make more sense to move some of these to menuconfig text for the  
appropriate option. But that's not the same as not documenting it at  
all, and "this document has been true for a long time and remains true,  
therefore we must discard it" strikes me as a really weird document  
retention criteria.


Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] Documentation/Changes: phase out Changes file that hasn't changed

2013-07-23 Thread Aaro Koskinen
Hi,

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:55AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> Looking at the bigger picture, the need for this file has simply
> passed.  It was trying to detail required versions of userspace
> packages, in order to cater to hand-crafted systems.  But now the
> majority of users get their userspace all at once from some kind
> of distro, and we are probably a lot more serious about avoiding
> breaking userspace than we were a dozen years ago.

Is there any file describing the needed tools (and minimum versions) to
_build_ the kernel? I agree that trying to describe such for the run-time
userspace does not belong to the kernel tree, but the required/supported
versions of build tools should be still maybe documented...

A.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


[PATCH] Documentation/Changes: phase out Changes file that hasn't changed

2013-07-20 Thread Paul Gortmaker
It has been over two years since this file has been touched, and
even that prior change was just to delete some ancient text.

Looking at the bigger picture, the need for this file has simply
passed.  It was trying to detail required versions of userspace
packages, in order to cater to hand-crafted systems.  But now the
majority of users get their userspace all at once from some kind
of distro, and we are probably a lot more serious about avoiding
breaking userspace than we were a dozen years ago.

The remaining data in the file, like (probably stale) links to
old package versions, etc. is also no longer of any real value
today, so let us just remove the file and all references to it.

For a couple references, where it was obvious the surrounding
text was also super ancient (e.g. 1.2.x kernels or similar),
the whole paragraph with the reference was removed.

Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker 
---
 Documentation/00-INDEX  |   2 -
 Documentation/Changes   | 415 
 Documentation/HOWTO |   5 -
 Documentation/filesystems/locks.txt |   4 -
 Documentation/isdn/README   |   3 +-
 Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO   |   5 -
 Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO   |   4 -
 Documentation/networking/PLIP.txt   |   3 +-
 Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO   |   3 -
 README  |  16 +-
 drivers/net/ppp/Kconfig |   5 +-
 drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig  |   3 +-
 fs/Kconfig.binfmt   |   6 -
 fs/fuse/Kconfig |   1 -
 net/Kconfig |   7 +-
 scripts/ver_linux   |   1 -
 16 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 475 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/Changes

diff --git a/Documentation/00-INDEX b/Documentation/00-INDEX
index 0c4cc68..ec40988 100644
--- a/Documentation/00-INDEX
+++ b/Documentation/00-INDEX
@@ -17,8 +17,6 @@ ABI/
 
 BUG-HUNTING
- brute force method of doing binary search of patches to find bug.
-Changes
-   - list of changes that break older software packages.
 CodingStyle
- how the maintainers expect the C code in the kernel to look.
 DMA-API.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/Changes b/Documentation/Changes
deleted file mode 100644
index b175808..000
--- a/Documentation/Changes
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,415 +0,0 @@
-Intro
-=
-
-This document is designed to provide a list of the minimum levels of
-software necessary to run the 3.0 kernels.
-
-This document is originally based on my "Changes" file for 2.0.x kernels
-and therefore owes credit to the same people as that file (Jared Mauch,
-Axel Boldt, Alessandro Sigala, and countless other users all over the
-'net).
-
-Current Minimal Requirements
-
-
-Upgrade to at *least* these software revisions before thinking you've
-encountered a bug!  If you're unsure what version you're currently
-running, the suggested command should tell you.
-
-Again, keep in mind that this list assumes you are already functionally
-running a Linux kernel.  Also, not all tools are necessary on all
-systems; obviously, if you don't have any ISDN hardware, for example,
-you probably needn't concern yourself with isdn4k-utils.
-
-o  Gnu C  3.2 # gcc --version
-o  Gnu make   3.80# make --version
-o  binutils   2.12# ld -v
-o  util-linux 2.10o   # fdformat --version
-o  module-init-tools  0.9.10  # depmod -V
-o  e2fsprogs  1.41.4  # e2fsck -V
-o  jfsutils   1.1.3   # fsck.jfs -V
-o  reiserfsprogs  3.6.3   # reiserfsck -V
-o  xfsprogs   2.6.0   # xfs_db -V
-o  squashfs-tools 4.0 # mksquashfs -version
-o  btrfs-progs0.18# btrfsck
-o  pcmciautils004 # pccardctl -V
-o  quota-tools3.09# quota -V
-o  PPP2.4.0   # pppd --version
-o  isdn4k-utils   3.1pre1 # isdnctrl 2>&1|grep version
-o  nfs-utils  1.0.5   # showmount --version
-o  procps 3.2.0   # ps --version
-o  oprofile   0.9 # oprofiled --version
-o  udev   081 # udevd --version
-o  grub   0.93# grub --version || 
grub-install --version
-o  mcelog 0.6 # mcelog --version
-o  iptables   1.4.2   # iptables -V
-
-
-Kernel compilation
-==
-
-GCC

-
-The gcc version requirements may vary depending on the type of CPU in your
-computer.
-
-Make
-
-
-You will need Gnu make 3.80 or later to build the kernel.
-
-Binutils
-
-
-Li