[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: GLEP 26 -- Handling kernels with portage

[Nathaniel McCallum]

On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 20:32 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Also, please realize that the 2.6 kernel build process is infinitely
> > > better than the 2.4 one, and based on it, a number of your listed
> > > objections and proposals are pretty moot.
> >
> > Like binary packaging support?
>
> Yes.

How does the 2.6 kernel build process allow one to create a binary
package that is fully integrated with portage.  Integration with portage
is essential (for security updates, etc).  We all know how secure the
kernel has been this last year.  Just think emerge --security would now
support kernels in a fully automated fashion.

>
> > Being able to keep around just the kernel headers?
>
> You can keep a read-only kernel tree.  Sorry, but that's necessary, you
> can't throw away all of the source and expect to build an external
> module properly.  Or so states the current kernel build authors.

All you need is the headers.  You can do away with about 50% or more of
the tree.  Plus, because we are implementing at the eclass level, we can
keep the tree compressed as a tarball, saving more space.

> > A single API for all package building?
>
> The kernel build process has nothing to do with building a package,
> although it does currently provide the ability to build a .deb and .rpm.

Which is helpful to gentoo how?  This is a portage integration issue.


> You do not address the currently "in-development" process in the GLEP
> from what I can see.
Plasmaroo has not outlined anything to me, but he had to leave tonight, so maybe
he ran out of time.


> Ok, so after the new process builds up a binary kernel, how will it
> install it on another machine?

It is the same as creating any other portage binary package.  We can also make GRP
binary kernel packages.

Nathaniel


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list