On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 06:43:44PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi! > > I know a lot about packaging from my work on Fedora in its early years > and quite closely watch the kernel for my day job these days. So I many > moons ago thought "why not combine the two interests and maintain a > small special interest repository that provides vanilla kernel packages > for Fedora", but never realized that idea. > > But I finally got things running now and set up such a repo with Linux > 3.2.1. Find details on > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kernel_Vanilla_Repositories > > Repo: > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/thl/kernel-vanilla-stable/ > > Git: > http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=thl/public_git/kernel.git;a=summary > > Patch to kernel.spec from F16 > http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=thl/public_git/kernel.git;a=commitdiff;h=7df221fa0c8d7f11f0ef511a5a75e5d5bd062ce5 > > I included the source for above wiki page and the patch kernel.spec > below. I hope that makes yelling in my direction ^w^w^w^w commenting on > it easier, as I suppose some people will not like the idea as a whole > ^w^w^w^w^w some of the decisions I made when adjusting the spec file for > my purposes. if that's the case please let me know, as I do not plan to > mention the effort anywhere else over the next few days; that way I > should be able to adjust details if there are good reasons to do so, > before to many people get aware of those repos. Well volunteered. I appreciate the effort and hope that you have more success than I did when I was building these by hand. > > Note, the next step I plan is to set up a second repo with packages that > have the latest mainline development kernels (3.3-rc). But I thought I > collect options on the current state of things first before moving on. Good plan. I have just a few minor comments below. Overall I think the wiki page is very well written and addresses most of the common question that always come up. > > == FAQ == > > ==== Are the kernels from the kernel-vanilla repositories as good as > > those Fedora provides? ==== > > > > No. There are several reasons for why not; the most important ones: > > > > * the developers that take care of the kernel package in Fedora are > > far more experienced in packaging kernels and kernel development than > > those that take care of the kernel-vanilla repositories * the kernels > > that get used in Fedora or released as proper update get a lot of > > testing; the kernels from the kernel-vanilla repositories get nearly > > no testing * some of the kernel-vanilla repositories contain kernels > > that are still under heavy development and sometimes are known to > > have serious bugs * the official Fedora kernels sometimes contain > > changes that fix security problems before they get upstream At times, the Fedora kernel contains fixes for issues that even prevent booting on machines as well. This is particularly true for the development -rcX series, with the kmemleak.patch we're carrying on top of 3.3-rc1 being a good example. Such patches should be carried only the short time it takes before they get into mainline, but they are fairly important. > > ==== Do you plan to provide packages for "linux-next" or "linux-rt" > > as well? ==== > > > > For now: No. I know there is some interest in packages for them, but > > maintaining those will consume a lot of time regularly and we have > > not enough resources to do it properly right now. But if you want to > > step up and help, [[user:thl|get in contact]]. If people are interested in the linux-rt project, I would suggest they work with the CCMA people as they're already based on that. There's no reason to duplicate effort if their work will suffice. I would avoid packaging linux-next entirely. Leave that to people that hand build kernels. > Patch > > > --- a/kernel.spec > > +++ b/kernel.spec > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel > > # > > # (Uncomment the '#' and both spaces below to set the buildid.) > > # > > -# % define buildid .local > > +%define buildid .vanilla.knurd > > ################################################################### > > > > # The buildid can also be specified on the rpmbuild command line > > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel > > # kernel-PAE (only valid for i686) > > %define with_pae %{?_without_pae: 0} %{?!_without_pae: 1} > > # kernel-debug > > -%define with_debug %{?_without_debug: 0} %{?!_without_debug: 1} > > +%define with_debug %{?_with_debug: 1} %{?!_with_debug: 0} > > # kernel-doc > > %define with_doc %{?_without_doc: 0} %{?!_without_doc: 1} > > # kernel-headers > > @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel > > # tools > > %define with_tools %{?_without_tools: 0} %{?!_without_tools: 1} > > # kernel-debuginfo > > -%define with_debuginfo %{?_without_debuginfo: 0} %{?!_without_debuginfo: 1} > > +%define with_debuginfo %{?_with_debuginfo: 1} %{?!_with_debuginfo: 0} > > # kernel-bootwrapper (for creating zImages from kernel + initrd) > > %define with_bootwrapper %{?_without_bootwrapper: 0} %{?!_without_bootwrapper: 1} > > # Want to build a the vsdo directories installed > > @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel > > %define with_sparse %{?_with_sparse: 1} %{?!_with_sparse: 0} > > > > # Include driver backports (e.g. compat-wireless) in the kernel build. > > -%define with_backports %{?_without_backports: 0} %{?!_without_backports: 1} > > +%define with_backports %{?_with_backports: 1} %{?!_with_backports: 0} > > > > # Set debugbuildsenabled to 1 for production (build separate debug kernels) > > # and 0 for rawhide (all kernels are debug kernels). > > @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel > > > > %if %{nopatches} > > %define with_bootwrapper 0 > > -%define variant -vanilla > > +#define variant -vanilla I don't see where you define nopatches or with_vanilla in this patch. Did you do that when you actually built and just didn't include it in this patch? josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
