Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>>>Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
> >>>>stuff!
> >>>>
> >>>>A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or
> >>>>CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
> >>>What is CONFIG_VANILLA?  I don't see that in the upstream kernel tree
> >>>at all.
> >>>
> >>>CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL is now gone from upstream, so you are going to
> >>>have a problem with this.
> >>Earlier I mentioned "2) These feature should depend on a non-vanilla /
> >>experimental option." which is an option we would introduce under the
> >>Gentoo distribution menu section.
> >Distro-specific config options, great :(
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "distro-specific",

See later mention of CONFIG_GENTOO_EXPERIMENTAL, that is what I was
referring to.

> but suppose people
> want BFQ? Why can't we have it in gentoo-sources.  It is totally
> disabled by not selecting CONFIG_BFQ.  Selecting it is no different
> than emerging pf-sources with the same other options ported over.

Until you run into a patch that modifies code outside of it's CONFIG_
option, like the aufs example I pointed out.

> By your logic, we should not distribut pf-sources either.  The truth
> of the matter is, there are forks of the vanilla kernel out there. Are
> you suggesting we distribute none of them?

That's a total false argument, the discussion here is about our "main"
gentoo-kernel tree, not one of our many domain-specific kernel versions
that are maintained separately.

> NOTE: hardened-sources is its own world.  There is not level of
> turning on/off options that get you back to a vanilla kernel.

Agreed, which keeps that from being merged into this tree, hopefully :)

thanks,

greg k-h