Re: Kernel configurations for Fedora -- a proposal

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/07/2016 01:16 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 06.12.2016 19:46, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 12/06/2016 04:44 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Lo! On 21.11.2016 19:46, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>>> As a follow up to the previous discussion about kernel configuration
>>>> in Fedora (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/DBOBI6F3SLEAW2O5RLGZOOXQ5VKEWQIW/)
>>>> I have a prototype of what a method of keeping each configuration
>>>> file in a separate file would look like. This method takes care of
>>>> several of my gripes of the current version (and found a few errors
>>>> in the existing config files). The biggest question I have is if
>>>> this will scale for how frequently Fedora adjusts configuration
>>>> options. Some of that could possibly be solved with more scripting
>>>> improvements.
>> […]
>>> * Just thinking aloud: I wonder if the pre-generated *debug.configs are
>>> a good idea. Wouldn't it be more obvious what is happening if we'd ship
>>> one base config (e.g. where debugging is turned off) and then have
>>> something in the spec file itself that builds slightly modified version
>>> depending on what is needed in the current build? Having a mechanism
>>> like this might be handy for other situations as well. For example we
>>> could have something in the spec file that automatically disables
>>> "CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_48" and "CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS" when building for
>>> "$fedora_release <= F25"; this way we'd make sure things like that do
>>> not accidental make it into older releases during a rebase.
>>
>> I'm not sure how that would be more obvious. Generating the configs
>> makes it easier to check each file to see what's present vs not
>> being able to see what's enabled until it is built. I'm wary
>> to put anything more in the .spec file than we have to since the
>> file is complicated enough as is. 
> 
> Yeah, I can see that (albeit I found the
> "generate_(all|debug)_configs.sh" scrits a bit confusing at first and
> would prefer to see the commands directly in the spec file). But OTOH:
> 

The amount of code in those scripts used to be much bigger so I can
look to pull those functions into the spec file.

>> Having the spec file enforce config
>> policy would be a step in the wrong direction.
> 
> I tend to think: putting too much tricks into our SCM is the wrong
> direction. Sure, it might make things easier to maintain for Fedora
> developers. But it's not a fedpkg checkout advanced users start with
> when they want to build a modified package -- instead it's typically the
> SRPM they will use as base. That's why we have individual patches there
> and that's why I think some logic is better suited there -- for example
> when it comes to configurations options that are better disabled
> (ideally automatically!) when you rebuild a rawhide kernel on the latest
> or and earlier Fedora release.
> 


Right but all the individual CONFIG_FOO=y files are not present in
the RPM. Only the fully generated kernel-$arch.config are present
in the SRPM. I updated the latest version to have config-local
(renamed to kernel-local) so options can be added there as well.

The decision of whether or not to use the debug config for rawhide
is already controlled via %define debugbuildsenabled. Is there more
logic you would like to see expanded apart from that?

> The latter is something I do, so I obviously have a interest to make
> that easy. Thus I wanted my voice to get heard in this discussion, which
> I archived now, so I'm happy :-) IOW: it's not a big issue for me, I'm
> fine with putting this subthread to a rest now.

Appreciated!

> 
> Cu, knurd
> 

Thanks,
Laura
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux