Re: Fedora and 5.19

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

 



Hi,

On 8/8/22 02:02, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:04 AM Justin Forbes <jforbes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:44 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 11:35 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 8/2/22 22:15, Justin Forbes wrote:
>>>>> The initial fedora-5.19 branch has been created in kernel-ark. As I
>>>>> mentioned earlier, F37 will branch a 6.0 merge window kernel, but that
>>>>> will be replaced with 5.19 as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure when F37 branches of, but it would it not be better
>>>> to keep at F37 on 5.19 and move rawhide to 6.0 once F37 has its
>>>> own branch ?
>>>>
>>>> My main worry here is how you are going to get F37/rawhide consumers
>>>> to move back from 5.20 to 5.19. The only way I see to do this is
>>>> bump the epoch, which we generally try to avoid ?
>>>
>>> dnf distro-sync will also downgrade but I two have concerns.
>>>
>>
>> I suppose I was rather counting on people to just do it by hand if
>> they were concerned. F37 branches next Tuesday, so it will still be in
>> the merge window.  I somewhat figured users that are willing to run
>> merge window kernels are probably a bit more capable of managing an
>> rpm downgrade if necessary.
>>
>>> I wonder if not doing something similar to what we do when stabilising
>>> kernels would work, push 5.19 to that and build there while keeping
>>> rawhide branch as 5.20 rc and doing builds for it but not tagging it
>>> into the rawhide release until branching. There might need to be a
>>> special branch process there too. Messy for dev side but probably less
>>> messy for uses.
>>
>> I suppose I could have them untagged with each build (yesterday's
>> failed as I need filter updates).  That does get a bit problematic
>> though, as it would likely subject those kernels to deletion after
>> some time, and make it harder for people using them for a "koji
>> bisect".  Not really sure the right answer there.
> 
> Turns out there are some build issues due to kunit. Multiple ways to
> work around them, but trying to figure out the best path going
> forward. so at this point I have done source commits, but won't do a
> proper 6.0 build until after the branch.

Ok, the build issues are unfortunate, but this does nicely solve the
downgrade issue.

Regards,

Hans
_______________________________________________
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[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