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