[gentoo-catalyst] RFC: Feature wish list (catalyst/genkernel)

[gentoo-catalyst] RFC: Feature wish list (catalyst/genkernel)

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3584 bytes --]

I'm sending this along to gentoo-dev-announce so that everybody can see
it.

I'm trying to get together a list of features for development for
catalyst and genkernel.  I have a nice laundry list of things that I
plan on implementing/changing, but what about you?  We're making both of
them more modular, so it will be easier for people to extend their
functionality.  By doing this, catalyst/genkernel users don't have to
wait until the next release to get support for new devices/etc.  I,
also, hope to try to move out some of the supporting files for specific
support (like lvm, dmraid, etc.) into their own modules.  I'm hoping
that they get picked up by *at least* the Gentoo package maintainers.
As such, we're going to need a stable API for people to hook their
scripts into that won't break with every new version.

The idea is to make it much easier to test new features, since the code
will be isolated and modular.  We recognize that getting new features
into genkernel (especially) and catalyst has been difficult, at times,
especially during Gentoo release cycles, when several releases could be
made a day for both genkernel and catalyst.  This email is to try to
gather responses from the community on what they'd like to see added to
these products.  So, without further ado, on to my questions for you!

- What do you use catalyst/genkernel for?
- How long have you been using these packages?
- Have you been impressed with the improvements being made?
- Have you been pleased with the direction these projects have taken?
- What can be done to improve them?
- What one feature would you die to see implemented?

Here is the current "TODO" for catalyst:
- Remove spec_prefix from all exported variables
  - this allows for both global and scope-specific checks
- sign release materials (if configured)
- documentation: reference, howto, and guides
- create logs as necessary
- send emails if configured
- add multiple target support for a single spec
- separate out options that control catalyst versus the package manager
- add a new livecd/type for livedvd
  - make livedvd type perform several actions automatically
    - auto-fetch distfiles
    - automatically pull stages
- check that distcc_hosts is set before enabling distcc
- allow setting of distcc_hosts in catalyst.conf - override with specs
- check/save host ccache settings and ensure we don't overwrite them
- perform user management via a loop in livecd-stage2
- merge livecd-stage1/livecd-stage2
- improve autoresume support
- improve kerncache support
- add portage jobs support
  - --jobs
  - --keep-going
  - --load-average
- perform GCC version detection in seed stages to get supported settings
- build bootloaders on-demand, rather than using pre-built tarballs
- add pre-submitted patches for new features/bugs

...and genkernel:
- Need configs for other currently-unsupported arches
- Make configs stackable (defaults -> arch -> conf -> cli)
- Move modules_load to /etc/genkernel (stackable)
- Move main config to /etc/genkernel
- Update documentation
- Refactor code to be more simple and modular
- Fix all TODO sections in the code
- Add all options to genkernel.conf
- Add "include" options to genkernel.conf to allow for genkernel.d
- Allow for arch-specific or module-specific files to override defaults
- Create hooks in the build/install phases for modules
- Add pre-submitted patches for new features/bugs

So tell me, what would you like to see added to genkernel/catalyst?

Thanks,

-- 
Chris Gianelloni

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-catalyst] RFC: Feature wish list (catalyst/genkernel)I am a big fan of both projects

[Mick Reed]

I am a big fan of both projects, although I have yet to master either.
For genkernel, I would like to see perhaps a directory structure set up to 
build for multiple targets, each with its own directory and configs.  This is 
also how I imagine using catalyst, although I have yet to really understand 
the structure of it either.  Mostly, I haven't had the time to learn it yet.

Also for genkernel, does it actually build all of (busybox, device-mapper, 
lvm, etc) and where would we specify the use flags, configs for each of 
those?  It would be really slick to have a sort of spec file for these, as 
there is for catalyst.  This would assist the multiple target system.

If these are obvious and I haven't RTFM yet, then just ignore them, I'll catch 
up soon.  

I am interested in helping with documentation.  I'm a good technical writer 
and generally interested in catalyst and genkernel's future.  I'll be lurking 
around.

Thanks!
Mick Reed

Re: [gentoo-catalyst] RFC: Feature wish list (catalyst/genkernel)

[Nelson Batalha]

Hi,

Chris Gianelloni a écrit :

> This also allows us greater flexibility in making
> changes that would otherwise not be accepted within Gentoo.
What are the planned changes, and what are the issues?

> I, also, hope to try to move out some of the supporting files for specific
> support (like lvm, dmraid, etc.) into their own modules. (...) The idea is to make it much easier to test new features, since the code will be isolated and modular.  We recognize that getting new features
> into genkernel (especially) and catalyst has been difficult, at times,
> especially during Gentoo release cycles, when several releases could be
> made a day for both genkernel and catalyst. 

(pretty much what I wanted to suggest in bug #189849, for the same 
reasons actually :p)

Cheers

Re: [gentoo-catalyst] RFC: Feature wish list (catalyst/genkernel)I am a big fan of both projects

[Conway S. Smith]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:55:19 -0700
Mick Reed <oregon.mick@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am interested in helping with documentation.  I'm a good
> technical writer and generally interested in catalyst and
> genkernel's future.  I'll be lurking around.
> 

Improved Catalyst documentation is something I think should be a high
priority.  I seem to recall a while before the 2008.0 release someone
said they were planning on working on docs after the release, but I
don't have time right now to look for the specific email.  It's been a
while since I tried to use it, but I remember it not working, and
finding it frustratingly difficult to figure out why it wasn't
working. I think it may have been I was trying to build off a 2007.0
stage3, with a current portage tree snapshot, and maybe there were
too many things that had changed too much.  I'll be giving it another
try this week w/ a 2008.0 stage3, hopefully I'll have better luck.


Thanks,
Conway S. Smith