Hi Don! Do you still have this "git merge redhat-infra" idea you mentioned a few weeks ago on your radar? Now that Fedora starts to use kernel-ark for stable kernels as well it would be really nice to have something like that that at hand... At least for me. ;-) CU, knurd On 25.11.20 18:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am 25.11.20 um 15:43 schrieb Don Zickus: >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 06:10:21AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> Am 24.11.20 um 23:22 schrieb GitLab Bridge on behalf of dzickusrh: >>>> From: Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> The workflow has recently changed such that all development is done >>>> on the 'os-build' branch. Update the docs to show how easy it is >>>> to make a change, commit it, generate the srpm and upload it to koji. >>>> […] >>> >>> While you are dealing with this a quick question: What's the best way >>> to use >>> the ark tree to build a vanilla kernel these days? >> My plan at the time was to auto-create another branch say 'redhat-infra' > > How about "build-infra" or "rh-build-infra"? (for the record: I find all > those redhat and rh terms in ark slightly annoying, because it's sending > the wrong message to community contributes, but well, one more "rh" or > less now doesn't matter anymore...) > >> (bad name I know) that stripped Red Hat patches out of os-build >> leaving just >> the redhat/ directory on top of upstream 'linus' branch. >> >> Then you could take any upstream branch and just 'git merge >> redhat-infra' to >> quickly add in the RH infrastructure pieces. And that would address your >> concern, I believe. > > Yes, that should work for me. > >> However, that did slip off my radar and I never finished writing that >> script >> to generate that branch. > > Happens, no worries, I might have made more noise earlier if I actually > had been using ark as base for my vanilla builds ;-) > >> But assuming I did finish that script, would the spirit of that approach >> work for you? (aside from a better name [suggestions welcome]) > > Afaics yes(¹). And of course I'm willing to test and fine-tune this. > > Ciao, Thorsten > > (¹) while at please let me state a remotely related general wish, maybe > it's something that might be useful for others as well: for my use case > it would be ideal if redhat/configs/fedora/ in ark would also contain > which config settings ideally need to be set differently when building a > kernel for an older release. Right now one of the few differences (apart > from new config options) between rawhide and F32 for example is > CONFIG_FB_MODE_HELPERS: in rawhide it's not set, in F32 it's enabled. > Having this information directly in ark as a override (maybe in > redhat/configs/fedora/32/, redhat/configs/fedora/overrides/f32/, or > something like that) would be useful for me; and I guess it would be > useful for the Fedora's kernel maintainers as well, in case they start > building kernels for released Fedora version from ark sooner or later as > well (which I assume is the long term plan – or not?). _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
