On 11/28/2017 09:16 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Like all good bits of software, the kernel.spec has grown over time. >> Part of this growth has come from building more of the userspace >> tools that live under the tools directory of the kernel. I've been >> experimenting with moving these to a separate spec file. >> >> Advantages: >> - Less stuff in the kernel.spec file (~300 line deletion) >> - Fewer build deps for things like perf >> - People building the kernel only get the kernel >> - Issues with userspace tools don't impact the kernel >> - Can likely drop most of the debuginfo regex nightmare for the userspace >> packages >> >> Disadvantages: >> - Would need to manually keep in sync on some cadence. This is mostly >> an issue for rawhide. Could we actually get away with only re-building >> on each new kernel version or do we need to resync on each -rc? >> - Would probably need to rework how tools are tied to kernel versions at >> the package level >> - Others added here IIUC this means if I have a patch that touches tools/power/turbostat and drivers/idle/intel_idle.c I now have to open up two bugzillas to track things so that the kernel and kernel tools is synchronized? There are times where tools/power require changes to real kernel code and the userspace tools. While this is happening less frequently, it has happened in the past and it could happen in the future. Anyone on the virt side of things want to comment? ISTR having a conversation with someone about versions of tools/hv requiring *specific* kernel versions (I'm foggy on the details). P. _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
