Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 21:15:38
Message-Id: 51D1F1D3.8030402@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration. by Greg KH
1 On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
2 > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
3 >>>> Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
4 >>>> stuff!
5 >>>>
6 >>>> A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or
7 >>>> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
8 >>> What is CONFIG_VANILLA? I don't see that in the upstream kernel tree
9 >>> at all.
10 >>>
11 >>> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL is now gone from upstream, so you are going to
12 >>> have a problem with this.
13 >> Earlier I mentioned "2) These feature should depend on a non-vanilla /
14 >> experimental option." which is an option we would introduce under the
15 >> Gentoo distribution menu section.
16 > Distro-specific config options, great :(
17
18 I'm not sure what you mean by "distro-specific", but suppose people want
19 BFQ? Why can't we have it in gentoo-sources. It is totally disabled by
20 not selecting CONFIG_BFQ. Selecting it is no different than emerging
21 pf-sources with the same other options ported over. By your logic, we
22 should not distribut pf-sources either. The truth of the matter is,
23 there are forks of the vanilla kernel out there. Are you suggesting we
24 distribute none of them?
25
26 NOTE: hardened-sources is its own world. There is not level of turning
27 on/off options that get you back to a vanilla kernel.
28
29 >
30 >>>> which would be disabled by default, therefore if you keep this
31 >>>> option the way it is on your stable server; it won't affect you.
32 >>> Not always true. Look at aufs as an example. It patches the core
33 >>> kernel code in ways that are _not_ accepted upstream yet. Now you all
34 >>> are running that modified code, even if you don't want aufs.
35 >> Earlier I mentioned "3) The patch should not affect the build by
36 >> default."; if it does, we have to adjust it to not do that, this is
37 >> something that can be easily scripted. It's just a matter of embedding
38 >> each + block in the diff with a config check and updating the counts.
39 > Look at aufs as a specific example of why you can't do that, otherwise,
40 > don't you think that the aufs developer(s) wouldn't have done so?
41 >
42 > The goal of "don't touch any other kernel code" is a very good one, but
43 > not always true for these huge out-of-tree kernel patches. Usually that
44 > is the main reason why these patches aren't merged upstream, because
45 > those changes are not acceptable.
46 >
47 > So be very careful here, you are messing with things that are rejected
48 > by upstream.
49 >
50 > greg k-h
51 >
52
53
54 --
55 Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
56 Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
57 E-Mail : blueness@g.o
58 GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
59 GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA

Replies