On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 14:47 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > You keep saying things like that, but I honestly have lost all context > of what you are actually wanting to change here and why. My overall goals are pretty vague, so I suppose my objections are pretty vague too. My goals for this series are pretty clear, however And as far as this series is concerned: only patch 3/5 is controversial, right? > Could you start with a summary email of the workflow you are desiring, > with some examples perhaps? That would be helpful. Well, hmm. I guess there are three kind of reasons to build the kernel rpm locally. (If none of these reasons make sense, or, even worse, you suspect almost no one is actually building the kernel rpm locally in the first place we might as well stop this discussion right here. In that case I'm inclined to take "_we_ don't care" as a reasonable objection to any patches I submit.) 1) Rebuilding a minimal set of the kernel packages as quickly, basically, etc. as possible. Probably to test the stack of local patches one has. That's what I do. It requires "--with vanilla" and a few "--without" rpmbuild flags. 2) Rebuilding the entire set of kernel packages for your local architecture, with all Fedora specific patches, etc. Probably also to test some local patches. I never do that. 3) Play Fauxdora and rebuild all kernel packages for all supported architectures. I never do that, and can't imagine I'll ever want to do that. Anyhow, my sort of, kind a goal is to make 1) as easy as possible. Does this clarify things a bit? Paul Bolle _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
