ogra,
Did you see the mail to kernel mailing list where someone wanted to
add DVB drivers ( http://www.tevii.com) to our tree?, Realtek is
another example. The issue with such drivers can be that they are not
upstream or in beta, but are unsupported. Unless we have a commitment
from the driver developers that they are willing to support these
drivers I don't think we can add them to our tree safely. Not sure if
you guys have thought about such a situation.
--
manjo
PM, Oliver Grawert <o...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> hi,
> Am Montag, den 15.11.2010, 08:53 -0700 schrieb John Rigby:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Loïc Minier <loic.min...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> > Folks, I think this thread is circling a bit back to itself, perhaps
>> > summarizing where we stand and what problems we're trying to solve
>> > would help?
>> >
>> >
>> > * Linaro integrates its kernel tree into Ubuntu for two reasons:
>> > - because Linaro uses Ubuntu as a base to build its own derived
>> > images (out of Ubuntu)
>> > - because Linaro wants its kernel shipped/available in distributions
>> > such as Ubuntu/MeeGo/whatever for mutual benefit of the distro and
>> > of Linaro. For instance, Ubuntu users could install this kernel
>> > instead of the official Ubuntu one, or Ubuntu could build images
>> > from this kernel (as proposed in the original email).
>> >
>> > * there are currently the following *three* trees for the Ubuntu Linaro
>> > kernel packages to happen (for maverick):
>> > - git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-2.6.35.git -- upstreamish
>> > tree maintained by Nicolas, based on upstream git tree with patches
>> > relevant to Linaro merged in; the Linaro Kernel
>> > - git://git.linaro.org/ubuntu/linux-linaro.git -- Ubuntu-ish tree
>> > for the linux-linaro source package in Ubuntu or in Linaro PPAs
>> > maintained by jcrigby, based on the Linaro Kernel tree with
>> > packaging and the Ubuntu stuff ("Sauce") merged in
>> > - git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-maverick.git linaro branch --
>> > pretty much the same as jcrigby's tree maintained by the Ubuntu
>> > kernel team; it's mostly a copy of jcrigby's tree when it gets
>> > uploaded to Ubuntu, unless the Ubuntu kernel team has to do any
>> > minor adjustments/fixups before upload; it exists only because
>> > jcrigby can't upload and because /ubuntu is restricted to the
>> > official Ubuntu Kernel Team
>> >
>> > So what problems / questions are we trying to solve?
>> > * security support: Linaro isn't in the business of long-term security
>> > support of its trees, however I understand that it wouldn't be a big
>> > problem to simply add the *Ubuntu* linux-linaro package and the
>> > kernel.ubuntu.com git tree to the list of packages/trees which get
>> > security updates from the Ubuntu Security Team, especially if the
>> > Ubuntu ARM Team moves to this package/tree as their base for some
>> > images
>> > * for Linaro, the Ubuntu Sauce stuff doesn't add any much value and is
>> > a distraction (causes more merge efforts, might cause extra bugs
>> > etc.)
>> >
>> >
>> > Is this a fair summary? Did I miss anything?
>> >
>> >
>> > I am not sure I understand the point of contention with the Ubuntu
>> > Sauce stuff; is it causing problems to Linaro right now?
>> > Linaro GCC is released in source form and then integrated in the
>> > Ubuntu gcc-4.x packages which have tons of patches added on top; this
>> > is not ideal for Linaro Toolchain WG, but it's part of the process to
>> > check whether bugs do apply to the pristine Linaro source, just like
>> > you need to test a pristine upstream GCC or Linux when reporting bugs
>> > upstream.
>> >
>> > There are definitely things we could do to improve the Ubuntu Sauce:
>> > * split this stuff more; e.g.:
>> > - packaging goes in one tree (I think this is already split out?)
>> > - patches which come from upstream or were acked upstream go into
>> > another tree
>> > - patches which are Ubuntu specific such as AUFS go into one or
>> > multiple separate trees
>> > * we could review the current sauce stuff and only merge in features
>> > which are really needed for Linaro images and Ubuntu ARM images; aufs
>> > doesn't seem to be needed anymore for instance? Maybe this makes
>> > things more complex for little gain though
>> > * we could stop merging patches from upstream from Ubuntu, and have
>> > them flow in via Linaro instead; again, maybe this makes things more
>> > complex for little gain
>> >
>> >
>> > My opinion is that the current approach is okay modulo two things:
>> > - we should drop one of the two packaging trees; the
>> > linaro / jcrigby versus kernel.ubuntu.com split is useless
>> > - we could provide pristine kernel builds, built from the Linaro Kernel
>> > directly and without any Ubuntu Sauce
>> > . in fact these exist already, they just aren't tested and they use a
>> > random config: http://hudson.dooz.org/
>> > . if we want Linaro Kernel .debs instead of standalone zImage/uImage,
>> > we could do something like
>> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/MainlineBuilds
>> >
>> >
>> > Proposed plan
>> > * Oliver/Ricardo to confirm with Ubuntu Security Team whether it's ok
>> > to base Ubuntu ARM images on linux-linaro tree as constructed
>> > currently
>> I can't speak for the Ubuntu ARM folks but I believe their main concern was
>> if
>> I stopped including Ubuntu Sauce.
> right, that was one of my concerns, another was how much the kernels
> differ from BSP source we usually use for ubuntu images so that all
> on-board devices work out of the box.
>
> then there is the question about ubuntu configs (which you answered)
> (since we try to keep our QA efforts low we expect the same or a close
> to same config to the ubuntu kernel in the arm kernels (i.e. a user
> needs to be able to plug in his DVB-T USB stick and get the same results
> in ubuntu arm as he gets on his ubuntu laptop))
>
> my main concern though is the 18 month support timeframe which we
> provide for ubuntu images.
>
> i think from the linaro side i got sufficient answers now, it seems we
> could use johns trees as a base for ubuntu images but would have to have
> someone from the ubuntu kernel team and the ubuntu security team for
> maintaining security and config alignment.
>
> the situation in the kernel team wrt arm maintenance is just being
> sorted afaik, so i expect to get some info in this thread in the not to
> far future ...
>
> ciao
> oli
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
>
>
--
Cogito Ergo Sum
--- manjo
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
