[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-09 Thread Steven J. Long
Tom Wijsman wrote: Steven J. Long wrote: The bit about the user explicitly opting-in to 'fragile' patches still is of concern, however. Why is this still of concern? .. My original post mentions 3) The patch should not affect the build by default., which I later clarified with It's just

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-05 Thread Steven J. Long
Tom Wijsman wrote: Steven J. Long wrote: Tom Wijsman wrote: Steven J. Long wrote: If it does [affect the build by default] then it should never be applied, unless the user specifically asks for it, imo, and the resultant kernel is labelled -exp as you suggest. Yes, we are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-05 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:38:10 +0100 Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: Tom Wijsman wrote: Yes, we currently have base and extras tarballs for genpatches; it is trivial to add a experimental tarball to this set, all the optional experimental patches will be in that tarball.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-04 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 06:27:59 +0100 Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: Tom Wijsman wrote: Steven J. Long wrote: If it does [affect the build by default] then it should never be applied, unless the user specifically asks for it, imo, and the resultant kernel is labelled

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-03 Thread Steven J. Long
Tom Wijsman wrote: Steven J. Long wrote: If it does [affect the build by default] then it should never be applied, unless the user specifically asks for it, imo, and the resultant kernel is labelled -exp as you suggest. Yes, we are going to introduce an experimental USE flag for this.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-03 Thread Steven J. Long
Walter Dnes wrote: Tom Wijsman wrote With USE=-experimental (which will be the default) they are excluded by default, after enabling that the user can exclude patches by setting UNIPATCH_EXCLUDE through the package.env mechanism. Assume that there are 50 different patches available. I

gentoo-checkconf script Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-02 Thread Michael Weber
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07/01/2013 11:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Now I'm confused because gentoo-sources is gentoo specific. It contains stuff that we need in gentoo but other distros do not need, like our end-to-end support for certain xattr namespaces. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-02 Thread Greg KH
Almost all of this portion of the thread is off-topic for gentoo-dev, so I'll leave it alone, and will be more than willing to take it up somewhere else it is on-topic for, like linux-kernel, if you want to. But, there is one thing I do want to ask/comment on, as it is relevant to users of

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Jeff Horelick
On 1 July 2013 10:41, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello Please reply to gentoo-dev in case ML daemon changes Reply-To. ### TL; DR ### By introducing feature patches which menu options are disabled by default to genpatches, we can deduplicate *-sources maintainers as well as

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:41:49PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: This problem is not only visible for patches, but also in the config. Meet CONFIG_DEVTMPFS; forget to enable it, greet a failing boot. We're telling users to enable it in some places, in the handbook it's a single line you must

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 07/01/2013 11:20 AM, Jeff Horelick wrote: On 1 July 2013 10:41, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello Please reply to gentoo-dev in case ML daemon changes Reply-To. ### TL; DR ### By introducing feature patches which menu options are disabled by default to genpatches, we can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Markos Chandras
On 1 July 2013 19:17, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: greg stick to the vanilla-sources k-h Before these changes were introduced, the gentoo-sources and vanilla-sources were quite similar in the sense that genpatches used to contain patches already in Linus' tree. However, given that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:17:49 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Meet CONFIG_DEVTMPFS; ... This is not the only build option that users must enable to get a booting system by far. So why single this one out? Because it is an example. Later on I explicitly mention There are a small set

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:38:48 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I certainly don't feel safe anymore running non-upstream code in production boxes. You don't run it unless you explicitly tick on that you want experimental functionality _as well as_ the optional features in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:30:51 -0400 Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: I was going to say depend on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL in Kconfig, but this is deprecated. See scripts/checkpatch.pl Yes, I think it wasn't clear from my first post; but the intention was to introduce such option under

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Matthew Summers
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:38:48 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I certainly don't feel safe anymore running non-upstream code in production boxes. You don't run it unless you explicitly tick on that you want

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL What is CONFIG_VANILLA? I don't see that in the upstream kernel tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:30:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Tom, you already know my opinion because we discussed it. I'm all for it. Just a reminder: there's always problems somewhere in the kernel which can be triggered by various options. The kernel is not one big take it or leave

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:09:57 -0500 Matthew Summers quantumsumm...@gentoo.org wrote: I think the point was well-made by grehkh. You missed my response to that point. If the patchset patches the kernel's core, it doesn't matter what CONFIG_* option is set the core kernel code

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:23:24 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Earlier I mentioned 3) The patch should not affect the build by default.; if it does, we have to adjust it to not do that, this is something that can be easily scripted. It's just a matter of embedding each + block in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:25:42PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:09:57 -0500 Matthew Summers quantumsumm...@gentoo.org wrote: If the patchset patches the kernel's core, it doesn't matter what CONFIG_* option is set the core kernel code _has_now_been_changed_. This is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:24:36 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:30:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Tom, you already know my opinion because we discussed it. I'm all for it. Just a reminder: there's always problems somewhere in the kernel which can be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:33:30 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:25:42PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:09:57 -0500 Matthew Summers quantumsumm...@gentoo.org wrote: If the patchset patches the kernel's core, it doesn't matter what CONFIG_*

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Fabio Erculiani
I believe that end users would benefit more from kernel binary ebuilds (ebuilds building an actual kernel with an official config), rather than all this. -- Fabio Erculiani

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Pacho Ramos
El lun, 01-07-2013 a las 21:55 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió: I believe that end users would benefit more from kernel binary ebuilds (ebuilds building an actual kernel with an official config), rather than all this. I don't see them exclusionary, look different issues to me :/ (with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Fabio Erculiani
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: El lun, 01-07-2013 a las 21:55 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió: I believe that end users would benefit more from kernel binary ebuilds (ebuilds building an actual kernel with an official config), rather than all this. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 21:55:23 +0200 Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote: I believe that end users would benefit more from kernel binary ebuilds (ebuilds building an actual kernel with an official config), rather than all this. There's been a start on this, but we're looking at you now;

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Markos Chandras
On 1 July 2013 20:09, Matthew Summers quantumsumm...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:38:48 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I certainly don't feel safe anymore running non-upstream code in production

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Christoph Junghans
2013/7/1 Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org: I believe that end users would benefit more from kernel binary ebuilds (ebuilds building an actual kernel with an official config), rather than all this. +1 The binary use flag for sys-kernel/*-sources in Funtoo implements exactly that. -- Fabio

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/01/2013 03:55 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: I believe that end users would benefit more from kernel binary ebuilds (ebuilds building an actual kernel with an official config), rather than all this. ++ - -ZC -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Fabio Erculiani
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] It's really scary to have the BFQ in a stable gentoo-sources ebuild. BFQ is not that scary, it's just an iosched (and it's quite easy to write an iosched), what could possibly go wrong? Jokes apart, I've been

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Fabio Erculiani
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Christoph Junghans ott...@gentoo.org wrote: 2013/7/1 Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org: I believe that end users would benefit more from kernel binary ebuilds (ebuilds building an actual kernel with an official config), rather than all this. +1 The binary use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 21:14:45 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: And besides that, I am sure that 98% of our users out there do not know they run a (heavily?) modified upstream kernel when they emerge the official/supported gentoo-sources. This point I do understand. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL What is CONFIG_VANILLA? I don't see that in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 07/01/2013 03:24 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:30:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Tom, you already know my opinion because we discussed it. I'm all for it. Just a reminder: there's always problems somewhere in the kernel which can be triggered by various options. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 07/01/2013 04:25 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] It's really scary to have the BFQ in a stable gentoo-sources ebuild. BFQ is not that scary, it's just an iosched (and it's quite easy to write an iosched), what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Fabio Erculiani
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm pretty sure I hit a genuine deadlock with it. I've been trying to reproduce with debugging on but nothing yet. But, having said that: BFQ [Experimtental] This introduced an experimental io scheduler. Have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 07/01/2013 05:24 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 07/01/2013 05:30 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm pretty sure I hit a genuine deadlock with it. I've been trying to reproduce with debugging on but nothing yet. But, having said that: BFQ [Experimtental] This

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:24:54 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: but suppose people want BFQ? Why can't we have it in gentoo-sources. It is totally disabled by not selecting CONFIG_BFQ. Selecting it is no different than emerging pf-sources with the same other options ported over.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Richard Yao
On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL What is CONFIG_VANILLA? I don't see that in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Richard Yao
On 07/01/2013 09:36 PM, Richard Yao wrote: On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:36:21PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Richard Yao
On 07/01/2013 09:56 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:36:21PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this stuff! A: These options

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Richard Yao
Furthermore, should the kernel kernel choose to engage that out-of-tree code, my expectation is that its quality will improve as they do testing and write patches. What do you mean by this? I probably should have clarified that there was a typo in that. I meant the kernel team, not the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

2013-07-01 Thread Richard Yao
On 07/01/2013 11:29 PM, Richard Yao wrote: On 07/01/2013 09:56 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:36:21PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: That is because fixes for other filesystems are either held back by a lack of system kernel updates or held hostage by regressions in newer kernels on