On 11/29/2017 10:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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? > > No? Why would you need two bugs? For example, the kernel package is built every night. And the kernel-tools package is now built randomly (if it is automatically built when the kernel package is built then there's no problem). I apply a patch that (in my example above) patches both tools/power/turbostat and drivers/idle/intel_idle.c I need *both* packages to be built. If kernel-tools and the kernel packages are out-of-sync with one another then there's going to be a problem. > >> 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). > > None of the existing kernel-tools packages have any sort of Requires > on specific kernel versions. If that is actually a problem, they > could be added but it doesn't appear to actually be an issue today... > I've hit this situation a few times with RHEL, where someone updated the kernel rpm but not the kernel-tools rpm. It probably happens more often at the server level because of the tools usage. It has never taken more than a "Please update your kernel-tools package" to get the reporter to fix the problem. P. > josh > _______________________________________________ > kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
