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

[Greg KH]

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 :(

> > >    which would be disabled by default, therefore if you keep this
> > > option the way it is on your stable server; it won't affect you.
> >
> > Not always true.  Look at aufs as an example.  It patches the core
> > kernel code in ways that are _not_ accepted upstream yet.  Now you all
> > are running that modified code, even if you don't want aufs.
>
> Earlier I mentioned "3) The patch should not affect the build by
> default."; if it does, we have to adjust it to not do that, this is
> something that can be easily scripted. It's just a matter of embedding
> each + block in the diff with a config check and updating the counts.

Look at aufs as a specific example of why you can't do that, otherwise,
don't you think that the aufs developer(s) wouldn't have done so?

The goal of "don't touch any other kernel code" is a very good one, but
not always true for these huge out-of-tree kernel patches.  Usually that
is the main reason why these patches aren't merged upstream, because
those changes are not acceptable.

So be very careful here, you are messing with things that are rejected
by upstream.

greg k-h