On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:25 AM GitLab Bridge on behalf of Paulo Edgar Castro <cki-gitlab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Paulo Edgar Castro on gitlab.com > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/761#note_446301275 > > > GitLab > > > > CKI Gitlab <https://gitlab.com/redhat-patchlab> commented > > <https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel- > ark/-/merge_requests/761#note_445670762>: > > > > > > Brian Masney bmasney@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bmasney@xxxxxxxxxx> commented > > via email: > > > > |On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 06:03:48PM -0000, GitLab Bridge on behalf of > > pecastro wrote: > From: pecastro on gitlab.com > > `make prepare` > > fails when trying to build external kernel modules. > Details in > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882854 and > previous > > related bugs. > > I'm not very happy with the final solution to this, > > ( the copy of the > tools dir ) but I ran out of steam chasing the > > dependencies required to > make this work and at some point I started > > doubting it was even possible > given that `make` seems to restart the > > process rebuilding even some of > the binaries shipped. So it looks > > like that'll add about 1.4MB to the kernel-devel package. I think > > we're likely to run into this issue with other include files down the > > road.| > > ||Is there a size requirement that should be honored? Surely > developer/debug time involved into making this work and maintaining it > going forward should be considered. > || > > ||I agree as I did above that the solution ( copying all of tools ) is a > bit blunt but ... > || > > |||1.4MB in this day and age seems peanuts compared with the potential > time costs involved in the long run. > | > > > |Maybe an alternative approach would be to make the kernel-devel > > package depend on the kernel-headers package and then setup symlinks > > to the header directories.| > > The kernel headers package includes "header files that specify the > interface between the Linux kernel and userspace" > > Whereas the devel package "provides kernel headers and makefiles > sufficient to build modules against the kernel package" > > Furthermore, most of the headers required for `make prepare` don't seem > part of the headers package and it would feel like an unnecessary mixing > of responsibilities ( in my opinion ) to make *devel* depend on > *headers* and go down a path of symlink kung fu ? > > Maybe @Justin has a view on this ? > > In any case, one or the other package would be getting a bit fatter ... > I do not like the idea of a symlink approach with kernel-headers, as it opens up the possibility of mismatch when you have a concurrent install for kernel and kernel-devel, but only a single version of kernel-headers on the system at any given time. That said, I also do not particularly like copying all of tools either. I would much rather trim this down to exactly what is needed. Remember, users with kernel-devel installed are likely to have 3 copies installed at any given time. Justin _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
