10:08 a.m.
This small series contains five cleanups to kernel.spec. The basic theme is the
way we run "make *config" targets on our .config files.
(There was talk, recently, of generating these .config files differently. I do
not know what happenend there. But this series only touches kernel.spec once we
already have .config files, so that's another stage in our build.)
This was only tested for x64_64 on a branch based of f24. It does apply cleanly
to master. A run on the build farms (of which I know nothing) might uncover
bugs in areas my testing didn't cover. I hope it doesn't.
Paul Bolle (5):
Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
Run make listnewconfig only if listnewconfig_fail is set
Only run listnewconfig and oldnoconfig for one arch
Replace 'all_x86' with 'x86_32'
Remove references to (31 bits) s390
kernel.spec | 21 ++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
--
2.7.4
10:08 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
In the %prep stage of the kernel build we run the "make oldnoconfig" target
fifteen times. And every time it prints:
scripts/kconfig/conf --olddefconfig Kconfig
#
# configuration written to .config
#
Run this target silently so these four lines are suppressed.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
---
kernel.spec | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
index cf54b60c75b7..08bfd7a9eac1 100644
--- a/kernel.spec
+++ b/kernel.spec
@@ -1258,7 +1258,7 @@ do
fi
%endif
rm -f .newoptions
- make ARCH=$Arch oldnoconfig
+ make -s ARCH=$Arch oldnoconfig
echo "# $Arch" > configs/$i
cat .config >> configs/$i
done
--
2.7.4
10:08 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 2/5] Run make listnewconfig only if listnewconfig_fail is set
We run make listnewconfig even if listnewconfig_fail is not set. Eg, if we
build using "--with vanilla". But in that case we simply ignore the results of
that make target.
If we don't care about the results we might as well not run this make target.
So only run it if listnewconfig_fail is set.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
---
kernel.spec | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
index 08bfd7a9eac1..f0fe21fef94b 100644
--- a/kernel.spec
+++ b/kernel.spec
@@ -1250,14 +1250,14 @@ for i in *.config
do
mv $i .config
Arch=`head -1 .config | cut -b 3-`
- make ARCH=$Arch listnewconfig | grep -E '^CONFIG_' >.newoptions || true
%if %{listnewconfig_fail}
+ make ARCH=$Arch listnewconfig | grep -E '^CONFIG_' >.newoptions || true
if [ -s .newoptions ]; then
cat .newoptions
exit 1
fi
-%endif
rm -f .newoptions
+%endif
make -s ARCH=$Arch oldnoconfig
echo "# $Arch" > configs/$i
cat .config >> configs/$i
--
2.7.4
10:08 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 3/5] Only run listnewconfig and oldnoconfig for one arch
During the %prep phase we run "make listnewconfig" and "make
oldnoconfig" for
all six supported architectures (arm64, arm, i386, powerpc, s390, and x86_64).
We only care about the set of .configs that is relevant for the current build
architecture. So skip these two make targets for the other architectures.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
---
kernel.spec | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
index f0fe21fef94b..e791d2565efc 100644
--- a/kernel.spec
+++ b/kernel.spec
@@ -1250,6 +1250,9 @@ for i in *.config
do
mv $i .config
Arch=`head -1 .config | cut -b 3-`
+ if [ $Arch != %{hdrarch} ]; then
+ continue
+ fi
%if %{listnewconfig_fail}
make ARCH=$Arch listnewconfig | grep -E '^CONFIG_' >.newoptions || true
if [ -s .newoptions ]; then
--
2.7.4
10:08 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 4/5] Replace 'all_x86' with 'x86_32'
The %all_x86 macro is a bit ambiguous. Rename it to %x86_32, as that is less
ambiguous.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
---
kernel.spec | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
index e791d2565efc..05e0190eea19 100644
--- a/kernel.spec
+++ b/kernel.spec
@@ -212,11 +212,11 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
%define with_perf 0
%endif
-%define all_x86 i386 i686
+%define x86_32 i386 i686
%if %{with_vdso_install}
# These arches install vdso/ directories.
-%define vdso_arches %{all_x86} x86_64 %{power64} s390 s390x aarch64
+%define vdso_arches %{x86_32} x86_64 %{power64} s390 s390x aarch64
%endif
# Overrides for generic default options
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
# Per-arch tweaks
-%ifarch %{all_x86}
+%ifarch %{x86_32}
%define asmarch x86
%define hdrarch i386
%define pae PAE
@@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ Version: %{rpmversion}
Release: %{pkg_release}
# DO NOT CHANGE THE 'ExclusiveArch' LINE TO TEMPORARILY EXCLUDE AN ARCHITECTURE
BUILD.
# SET %%nobuildarches (ABOVE) INSTEAD
-ExclusiveArch: %{all_x86} x86_64 ppc64 ppc64p7 s390 s390x %{arm} aarch64 ppc64le
+ExclusiveArch: %{x86_32} x86_64 ppc64 ppc64p7 s390 s390x %{arm} aarch64 ppc64le
ExclusiveOS: Linux
%ifnarch %{nobuildarches}
Requires: kernel-core-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
--
2.7.4
10:08 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 5/5] Remove references to (31 bits) s390
We don't build for (31 bits) s390 but only for (64 bits) s390x. So remove a few
irrelevant references to s390.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
---
kernel.spec | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
index 05e0190eea19..434059e759b3 100644
--- a/kernel.spec
+++ b/kernel.spec
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
%if %{with_vdso_install}
# These arches install vdso/ directories.
-%define vdso_arches %{x86_32} x86_64 %{power64} s390 s390x aarch64
+%define vdso_arches %{x86_32} x86_64 %{power64} s390x aarch64
%endif
# Overrides for generic default options
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
# Which is a BadThing(tm).
# We only build kernel-headers on the following...
-%define nobuildarches i386 s390
+%define nobuildarches i386
%ifarch %nobuildarches
%define with_up 0
@@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ Version: %{rpmversion}
Release: %{pkg_release}
# DO NOT CHANGE THE 'ExclusiveArch' LINE TO TEMPORARILY EXCLUDE AN ARCHITECTURE
BUILD.
# SET %%nobuildarches (ABOVE) INSTEAD
-ExclusiveArch: %{x86_32} x86_64 ppc64 ppc64p7 s390 s390x %{arm} aarch64 ppc64le
+ExclusiveArch: %{x86_32} x86_64 ppc64 ppc64p7 s390x %{arm} aarch64 ppc64le
ExclusiveOS: Linux
%ifnarch %{nobuildarches}
Requires: kernel-core-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ BuildRequires: sparse
%if %{with_perf}
BuildRequires: zlib-devel binutils-devel newt-devel python-devel perl(ExtUtils::Embed)
bison flex xz-devel
BuildRequires: audit-libs-devel
-%ifnarch s390 s390x %{arm}
+%ifnarch s390x %{arm}
BuildRequires: numactl-devel
%endif
%endif
--
2.7.4
10:16 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 3/5] Only run listnewconfig and oldnoconfig for one arch
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl> wrote:
During the %prep phase we run "make listnewconfig" and
"make oldnoconfig" for
all six supported architectures (arm64, arm, i386, powerpc, s390, and x86_64).
We only care about the set of .configs that is relevant for the current build
architecture. So skip these two make targets for the other architectures.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
NAK on this one.
We used to only run it for the current build architecture. However,
when we did that what wound up happening is that we'd have the new
options configured for that specific architecture (which is always
x86_64 because that is what people use), and it would then fail in
koji on the other architectures because of unset new configs.
So we run it for all arches to make sure we catch all new config
options as they come in.
josh
> ---
> kernel.spec | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
> index f0fe21fef94b..e791d2565efc 100644
> --- a/kernel.spec
> +++ b/kernel.spec
> @@ -1250,6 +1250,9 @@ for i in *.config
> do
> mv $i .config
> Arch=`head -1 .config | cut -b 3-`
> + if [ $Arch != %{hdrarch} ]; then
> + continue
> + fi
> %if %{listnewconfig_fail}
> make ARCH=$Arch listnewconfig | grep -E '^CONFIG_' >.newoptions ||
true
> if [ -s .newoptions ]; then
> --
> 2.7.4
> _______________________________________________
> kernel mailing list -- kernel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
10:16 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 5/5] Remove references to (31 bits) s390
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl> wrote:
We don't build for (31 bits) s390 but only for (64 bits) s390x.
So remove a few
irrelevant references to s390.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
Seems fine.
josh
> ---
> kernel.spec | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
> index 05e0190eea19..434059e759b3 100644
> --- a/kernel.spec
> +++ b/kernel.spec
> @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
>
> %if %{with_vdso_install}
> # These arches install vdso/ directories.
> -%define vdso_arches %{x86_32} x86_64 %{power64} s390 s390x aarch64
> +%define vdso_arches %{x86_32} x86_64 %{power64} s390x aarch64
> %endif
>
> # Overrides for generic default options
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
> # Which is a BadThing(tm).
>
> # We only build kernel-headers on the following...
> -%define nobuildarches i386 s390
> +%define nobuildarches i386
>
> %ifarch %nobuildarches
> %define with_up 0
> @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ Version: %{rpmversion}
> Release: %{pkg_release}
> # DO NOT CHANGE THE 'ExclusiveArch' LINE TO TEMPORARILY EXCLUDE AN
ARCHITECTURE BUILD.
> # SET %%nobuildarches (ABOVE) INSTEAD
> -ExclusiveArch: %{x86_32} x86_64 ppc64 ppc64p7 s390 s390x %{arm} aarch64 ppc64le
> +ExclusiveArch: %{x86_32} x86_64 ppc64 ppc64p7 s390x %{arm} aarch64 ppc64le
> ExclusiveOS: Linux
> %ifnarch %{nobuildarches}
> Requires: kernel-core-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
> @@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ BuildRequires: sparse
> %if %{with_perf}
> BuildRequires: zlib-devel binutils-devel newt-devel python-devel
perl(ExtUtils::Embed) bison flex xz-devel
> BuildRequires: audit-libs-devel
> -%ifnarch s390 s390x %{arm}
> +%ifnarch s390x %{arm}
> BuildRequires: numactl-devel
> %endif
> %endif
> --
> 2.7.4
> _______________________________________________
> kernel mailing list -- kernel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
12:09 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 3/5] Only run listnewconfig and oldnoconfig for one arch
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 11:16 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
We used to only run it for the current build architecture. However,
when we did that what wound up happening is that we'd have the new
options configured for that specific architecture (which is always
x86_64 because that is what people use), and it would then fail in
koji on the other architectures because of unset new configs.
On the bright side: at least koji did what it is supposed to do. But I guess
starting a new run on koji requires a non-trivial effort.
So we run it for all arches to make sure we catch all new config
options as they come in.
So this about the listnewconfig errors specifically, isn't it?
Because in that case there's an alternative approach to this patch (and 1/5)
that achieves most of what I actually care about.
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
12:12 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 3/5] Only run listnewconfig and oldnoconfig for one arch
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 11:16 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> We used to only run it for the current build architecture. However,
> when we did that what wound up happening is that we'd have the new
> options configured for that specific architecture (which is always
> x86_64 because that is what people use), and it would then fail in
> koji on the other architectures because of unset new configs.
On the bright side: at least koji did what it is supposed to do. But I guess
starting a new run on koji requires a non-trivial effort.
Right. It results in multiple config runs and starts and commits and bleh.
> So we run it for all arches to make sure we catch all new config
> options as they come in.
So this about the listnewconfig errors specifically, isn't it?
Because in that case there's an alternative approach to this patch (and 1/5)
that achieves most of what I actually care about.
Mostly, I think.
josh
12:43 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 17:08 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
In the %prep stage of the kernel build we run the "make
oldnoconfig" target
fifteen times. And every time it prints:
scripts/kconfig/conf --olddefconfig Kconfig
#
# configuration written to .config
#
Run this target silently so these four lines are suppressed.
Josh objected to 3/5. So I cobbled together an alternative to this patch that
does most I want in 1/5 and 3/5. It should be more palatable to Josh. See
below.
I'll resend this series in a week or so after (other) people have had a chance
to look at patches 2 to 5 too.
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
Subject: [PATCH] Don't run oldnoconfig twice
The .config file used to build the kernel is generated with "make oldnoconfig"
during the %build stage. So there's no need to also call "make oldnoconfig"
during the %prep stage, as that can't possibly change anything.
Not-yet-signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
---
kernel.spec | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
index abe0ab6a5ef8..51dc62dae014 100644
--- a/kernel.spec
+++ b/kernel.spec
@@ -1308,7 +1308,6 @@ do
fi
rm -f .newoptions
%endif
- make ARCH=$Arch oldnoconfig
echo "# $Arch" > configs/$i
cat .config >> configs/$i
done
--
2.7.4
2:28 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 17:08 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> In the %prep stage of the kernel build we run the "make oldnoconfig"
target
> fifteen times. And every time it prints:
> scripts/kconfig/conf --olddefconfig Kconfig
> #
> # configuration written to .config
> #
>
> Run this target silently so these four lines are suppressed.
Josh objected to 3/5. So I cobbled together an alternative to this patch that
does most I want in 1/5 and 3/5. It should be more palatable to Josh. See
below.
I agree with Josh, what is it that you're actually trying to achieve here?
Peter
2:59 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 20:28 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
I agree with Josh, what is it that you're actually trying to
achieve here?
What I want to achieve is to make the build a bit more quiet. And I prefer it
to not do things for no good reason.
But it turns out I can get what I want if we remove the call of "make
oldnoconfig" during %prep. There really is no need to do that for all config
files in configs/, as only one of those files will be used for the build. And
the file that actually will be used during %build will go through "make
oldnoconfig". So why bother doing that earlier during %prep?
And that's what the draft patch a few messages back in this thread does.
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
3:03 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 20:28 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I agree with Josh, what is it that you're actually trying to achieve here?
What I want to achieve is to make the build a bit more quiet. And I prefer it
to not do things for no good reason.
But it turns out I can get what I want if we remove the call of "make
oldnoconfig" during %prep. There really is no need to do that for all config
files in configs/, as only one of those files will be used for the build. And
the file that actually will be used during %build will go through "make
oldnoconfig". So why bother doing that earlier during %prep?
The reason it's done during prep for all config files is so that
maintainers can do a basic "fedpkg prep" to make sure they haven't
broken anything before pushing it. I do this numerous times a day when
working on kernel stuff.
Peter
3:09 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Paul Bolle
<pebolle(a)tiscali.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 20:28 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I agree with Josh, what is it that you're actually trying to achieve here?
>
> What I want to achieve is to make the build a bit more quiet. And I prefer it
> to not do things for no good reason.
>
> But it turns out I can get what I want if we remove the call of "make
> oldnoconfig" during %prep. There really is no need to do that for all config
> files in configs/, as only one of those files will be used for the build. And
> the file that actually will be used during %build will go through "make
> oldnoconfig". So why bother doing that earlier during %prep?
The reason it's done during prep for all config files is so that
maintainers can do a basic "fedpkg prep" to make sure they haven't
broken anything before pushing it. I do this numerous times a day when
working on kernel stuff.
Right.
Paul, your changes make some logical sense but they break the workflow
of the people that have to maintain the package. That's where most of
the pushback is going to come from.
josh
3:32 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 16:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Paul, your changes make some logical sense but they break the
workflow
of the people that have to maintain the package. That's where most of
the pushback is going to come from.
(Did I sound annoyed about any pushback? I hope I didn't.)
So perhaps I'll end up with the original patch here (ie, adding the "-s"
flag)
as the messages "make oldnoconfig" now generates hopefully aren't relevant
for
your workflow. We'll see.
You're not, well, principally opposed to patches that make sense from the
perspective of people rebuilding locally, are you?
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
6:38 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 16:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Paul, your changes make some logical sense but they break the workflow
> of the people that have to maintain the package. That's where most of
> the pushback is going to come from.
(Did I sound annoyed about any pushback? I hope I didn't.)
No, not at all. And I didn't think you were. I was just offering
extra context.
So perhaps I'll end up with the original patch here (ie, adding
the "-s" flag)
as the messages "make oldnoconfig" now generates hopefully aren't relevant
for
your workflow. We'll see.
I think that makes sense. We'd have to try them to be sure.
You're not, well, principally opposed to patches that make sense
from the
perspective of people rebuilding locally, are you?
Not opposed at all, but it can't be at the expense of people that have
to do things with this package multiple times a day.
josh
8:01 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 4/5] Replace 'all_x86' with 'x86_32'
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 5:08:41 PM CST Paul Bolle wrote:
The %all_x86 macro is a bit ambiguous. Rename it to %x86_32, as that
is less
ambiguous.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl>
---
kernel.spec | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel.spec b/kernel.spec
index e791d2565efc..05e0190eea19 100644
--- a/kernel.spec
+++ b/kernel.spec
@@ -212,11 +212,11 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
%define with_perf 0
%endif
-%define all_x86 i386 i686
+%define x86_32 i386 i686
why not just use rpms %{ix86} it does include geode, i486
i586 as well but it
seems simpler to me
Dennis
%if %{with_vdso_install}
# These arches install vdso/ directories.
-%define vdso_arches %{all_x86} x86_64 %{power64} s390 s390x aarch64
+%define vdso_arches %{x86_32} x86_64 %{power64} s390 s390x aarch64
%endif
# Overrides for generic default options
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel
# Per-arch tweaks
-%ifarch %{all_x86}
+%ifarch %{x86_32}
%define asmarch x86
%define hdrarch i386
%define pae PAE
@@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ Version: %{rpmversion}
Release: %{pkg_release}
# DO NOT CHANGE THE 'ExclusiveArch' LINE TO TEMPORARILY EXCLUDE AN
ARCHITECTURE BUILD. # SET %%nobuildarches (ABOVE) INSTEAD
-ExclusiveArch: %{all_x86} x86_64 ppc64 ppc64p7 s390 s390x %{arm} aarch64
ppc64le +ExclusiveArch: %{x86_32} x86_64 ppc64 ppc64p7 s390 s390x %{arm}
aarch64 ppc64le ExclusiveOS: Linux
%ifnarch %{nobuildarches}
Requires: kernel-core-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?variant}
1:08 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 19:38 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
[...] but it can't be at the expense of people that have
to do things with this package multiple times a day.
Sure.
But - to keep my reply at a reasonable length - setting defaults to values
that casual builders, probably, expect shouldn't be seen as doing something at
the expense of the people working with the package on a day to day basis.
Paul Bolle
1:47 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle(a)tiscali.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 19:38 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> [...] but it can't be at the expense of people that have
> to do things with this package multiple times a day.
Sure.
But - to keep my reply at a reasonable length - setting defaults to values
that casual builders, probably, expect shouldn't be seen as doing something at
the expense of the people working with the package on a day to day basis.
You keep saying things like that, but I honestly have lost all context
of what you are actually wanting to change here and why.
Could you start with a summary email of the workflow you are desiring,
with some examples perhaps? That would be helpful.
josh
2:36 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 14:47 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
You keep saying things like that, but I honestly have lost all
context
of what you are actually wanting to change here and why.
My overall goals are pretty vague, so I suppose my objections are pretty vague
too. My goals for this series are pretty clear, however
And as far as this series is concerned: only patch 3/5 is controversial,
right?
Could you start with a summary email of the workflow you are
desiring,
with some examples perhaps? That would be helpful.
Well, hmm. I guess there are three kind of reasons to build the kernel rpm
locally.
(If none of these reasons make sense, or, even worse, you suspect almost no
one is actually building the kernel rpm locally in the first place we might as
well stop this discussion right here. In that case I'm inclined to take "_we_
don't care" as a reasonable objection to any patches I submit.)
1) Rebuilding a minimal set of the kernel packages as quickly, basically, etc.
as possible. Probably to test the stack of local patches one has. That's what
I do. It requires "--with vanilla" and a few "--without" rpmbuild
flags.
2) Rebuilding the entire set of kernel packages for your local architecture,
with all Fedora specific patches, etc. Probably also to test some local
patches. I never do that.
3) Play Fauxdora and rebuild all kernel packages for all supported
architectures. I never do that, and can't imagine I'll ever want to do that.
Anyhow, my sort of, kind a goal is to make 1) as easy as possible. Does this
clarify things a bit?
Paul Bolle
4:48 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On 11/14/2016 12:36 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 14:47 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> You keep saying things like that, but I honestly have lost all context
> of what you are actually wanting to change here and why.
My overall goals are pretty vague, so I suppose my objections are pretty vague
too. My goals for this series are pretty clear, however
And as far as this series is concerned: only patch 3/5 is controversial,
right?
> Could you start with a summary email of the workflow you are desiring,
> with some examples perhaps? That would be helpful.
Well, hmm. I guess there are three kind of reasons to build the kernel rpm
locally.
(If none of these reasons make sense, or, even worse, you suspect almost no
one is actually building the kernel rpm locally in the first place we might as
well stop this discussion right here. In that case I'm inclined to take "_we_
don't care" as a reasonable objection to any patches I submit.)
1) Rebuilding a minimal set of the kernel packages as quickly, basically, etc.
as possible. Probably to test the stack of local patches one has. That's what
I do. It requires "--with vanilla" and a few "--without" rpmbuild
flags.
2) Rebuilding the entire set of kernel packages for your local architecture,
with all Fedora specific patches, etc. Probably also to test some local
patches. I never do that.
3) Play Fauxdora and rebuild all kernel packages for all supported
architectures. I never do that, and can't imagine I'll ever want to do that.
Anyhow, my sort of, kind a goal is to make 1) as easy as possible. Does this
clarify things a bit?
These are all fine reasons and motivations but I'm not seeing
the benefit of this patch specifically. The cost to generate
a few extra arch configs is negligible compared to the actual
time spent building the kernel. Do you have numbers showing
how much your build time is sped up?
Paul Bolle
Thanks,
Laura
3:37 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/5] Run oldnoconfig make targets silently
On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 14:48 -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
Do you have numbers showing how much your build time is sped up?
It appears I'm pretty good at presenting my case unconvincingly. So good
actually that I don't have to present daft reasons to be unconvincing.
Anyhow, I don't think I even implied this series is about decreasing build
times.
Paul Bolle
2711
days inactive
2716
days old
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
22 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Josh Boyer -
Laura Abbott -
Paul Bolle -
Peter Robinson