1 |
Michael Weber wrote: |
2 |
> Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
3 |
> > Now I'm confused because gentoo-sources is gentoo specific. It |
4 |
> > contains stuff that we need in gentoo but other distros do not |
5 |
> > need, like our end-to-end support for certain xattr namespaces. If |
6 |
> > you remove these then we must either 1) maintain a userland which |
7 |
> > is not in line with other distros or 2) give up on critical |
8 |
> > features we want in gentoo, like markings on elf object in |
9 |
> > user.pax.flags and certain caps, as well as in the future |
10 |
> > preserving selinux labels through emerge. Upstream will not accept |
11 |
> > them because of "who needs that crap" and we can't give them up |
12 |
> > without loosing core functionality. Feel free to review those |
13 |
> > patches but don't ask us to drop them from gentoo-sources because |
14 |
> > their not in upstream. |
15 |
|
16 |
Indeed. Every distro has their own kernel patches, and to all sorts of |
17 |
software. That's why we use it, since things are integrated, and in |
18 |
Gentoo we get as close to upstream as possible, while still useful. |
19 |
|
20 |
> What about a check-kernel-config-for-gentoo-compliance script for |
21 |
> starterts? |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I manage a handfull of kernel configs over some years (laptop vs. |
24 |
> server, graphics, firewalling capabilities) and was always tempted to |
25 |
> write an script to check if the config meets a certain set of |
26 |
> requirements. I think of "xattr", "selinux", "gentoo-boot" and so on, |
27 |
|
28 |
That makes sense. |
29 |
|
30 |
> that can be expanded by users demand, like, "CONFIG_CMDLINE should |
31 |
> include" and "CONFIG_DEFAULT_HOSTNAME=x" and "all iptables target on". |
32 |
Something like this? |
33 |
$KBUILD_SRC=${1:-.} |
34 |
# default user check function |
35 |
usr_config_check(){ |
36 |
: |
37 |
} |
38 |
user_script=$KBUILD_SRC/gentoo-user-check |
39 |
|
40 |
if [ -f $user_script ]; then |
41 |
# allow user to override settings |
42 |
. "$user_script" || die "unable to source user script: $user_script" |
43 |
fi |
44 |
..main script.. |
45 |
usr_config_check "$VERSION" "$PATCHLEVEL" etc.. || die "failed user check" |
46 |
..cleanup.. |
47 |
exit 0 |
48 |
|
49 |
> An additional make target in gentoo-sources could the warn about any |
50 |
> missing feature, and ask for "yes" or wait some seconds. |
51 |
> (I remember reaging some funny note about my kernel supporting x32 but |
52 |
> by userland not, like that kernel build would run on that userland) |
53 |
|
54 |
Yeah, if it ran after config, it could do simple checks at least, to begin |
55 |
with. Looking at linux/Makefile, we could just add: |
56 |
$(Q)gentoo-check-config "$KBUILD_SRC" |
57 |
after: $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=scripts/kconfig $@ |
58 |
..in config. I'm not sure if you'd need it for %config case as well; I |
59 |
don't see the need in the context of overall sanity checks. |
60 |
|
61 |
It would be useful though, to check for required things like {DEV,}TMPFS |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |