Nicolas Bigaouette wrote: > Hi all! > > Since a couple of years of using Arch, I often wanted to compile a custom > kernel, as many others did. There is many, many, many! forum threads about > that, a couple of wiki pages too, with questions and howtos. > > Many efforts has been put to create new PKGBUILDs[1-2] to ease the effort of > this. Unfortunately, these PKGBUILDs suffer from some drawback: > 1) They are placed on a wiki which can be edited by everybody. This mean it > is not a trusted place to store a PKGBUILD, specifically one as vital as the > kernel's. > 2) They tend to be forgotten and not updated anymore. This can lead to an > unbootable kernel, rendering all this useless. > 3) They do not take advantage of the devs' work: They are the best one to > trust for a quality PKGBUILD. They also have all the feedback from Arch > users, bug reports, etc. They know what has changed in the kernel and what > needs to be adapted for the installation, for example new "provides=()". A > PKGBUILD from a wiki page or a forum post might be good at the time of post, > but be outdated just days latter... > 4) They build a kernel which is way different then the stock one, for > example because they don't have the same patchset. > > Users most often wants to build a custom kernel just to try it, change some > configurations, add one or two patch, optimize for their own machines, etc. > Maily, they just want to take the existing one, change a couple of things, > and be ready. One also wants to install this kernel side by side with the > stock one, at least until his own kernel is stabilized and running as > wanted. Actually, Arch's stock kernel does not allow that. > > What I propose is some simple modifications to the PKGBUILD so users can try > to compile their own kernel based on the original, trusted, working and > approved one. With theese modifications, one only needs to add a "kernel > name" to the pkgname: "pkgname=kernel26-mykernel" for example. Nothing else > is needed to compile a custom kernel. The created package would sit without > problem side by side with the stock kernel. Also, if the pkgname is kept to > "kernel26", then the stock -ARCH kernel will be built. > > This approach has many advatanges: > 1) The patch is relativelly small: not much is changed in the original > PKGBUILD. > 1) Nothing changes for the devs. They continue to provide a quality kernel > to Arch users. > 2) Users who wants to compile a custom kernel can just sync abs, change the > pkgname and install a new kernel, in the KISS philosophy. They know that if > they just change the name, they will have the same package so they can > easily test whatever feature/patch/bug solution/optimization they want. > 3) Because one only needs to change the pkgname, they use the devs' high > quality, tried and truth PKGBUILD. When a new kernel is out, they can sync > the devs' modifications easily. > 4) Bugs affecting the kernel can be easily tested for solutions. Affected > users just need to compile a "-testing" kernel where a patch is applied, > install it and see if it works, without having to risk breaking his system > by replacing -ARCH kernel with an unbootable one. > 5) Better feedback to the devs since the users would be using (almost) the > same PKGBUILD as the original one. > 6) Simplify a lot all these "custom kernels" threads and wiki posts. > > I did "maintained" such a patch for myself because I wanted to keep in sync > with the original PKGBUILD. After posting it on the forum[3], I got some > positive feedback. People reporting back said they liked the simplicity and > the effectiveness of the method. They also positively tested it with > different configuration. The patch should be applied to revision 19747 for > i686 or 19749 for x86_64. It modifies the PKGBUILD and also slightly the > kernel26.install and kernel26.preset file. > > I am thus reporting this to be include in the official file. I think it > would be a great addition to an already great distro. I am open to > discussion on the subject. I hope I am posting this on the right mailing > list and that it can be included! :) > > Sincerely, > > big_gie > > [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernel_Compilation_with_ABS > [2] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Custom_Kernel_Compilation_with_ABS > [3] http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=37579 > > +1 I used to run Lunar Linux and really liked the way each kernel upgrade happened; it'd store a copy of your .config (or, in the case of big_gie's recommendation, a copy of the arch dev's .config) away under var, then download the kernel source, apply any patches, run a "make oldconfig", then ask if you wanted to configure the kernel. If you chose yes, it'd look at an environment variable and depending on what it found, run "make menu{,x,g,q,}config" and upon saving the .config it'd kick off the compilation and installation of the kernel. That's really the only thing that I miss about Lunar since coming over to Arch. Anyhow, it's just a feature request. :) -Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
