[gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Can we please get a consistent answer on 2.6 kernels when it comes to 
sparc?  We used to have sparc-development-sources, which we were told to 
consolidate into development-sources.  Now today with absolutely 0 
notification what-so-ever, our patchsets to development-sources were 
yanked because it wasn't the appropriate place.

So what is the appropriate place?  Can you as a team please come up with a 
singular answer and at least consult all those who will be effected 
*before* you change your mind and implement those changes?

Thanks,
- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA7wrbdKvgdVioq28RAo1cAJ9EevkQSkzWwR58MSIjyxIfB6P7QwCeP9gS
iFLgXIi15hv+E3JOn/OVIIs=
=Fo3y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:15:05PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> Can we please get a consistent answer on 2.6 kernels when it comes to 
> sparc?  We used to have sparc-development-sources, which we were told to 
> consolidate into development-sources.  Now today with absolutely 0 
> notification what-so-ever, our patchsets to development-sources were 
> yanked because it wasn't the appropriate place.

Sorry for the stress.  There really isn't a kernel team anymore, becides
me and a few others, and we all seem strung accross different timezones
these days.

Here's the answer:
	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels
	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.

This is needed so that bugs and security fixes that previously have not
gotten put into the d-s package get applied across all arches quickly
and easily.

I am willing and able to help the sparc team (and any other arch) to
make the g-d-s package work for them.

Is that acceptable?

thanks,

greg k-h

> 
> So what is the appropriate place?  Can you as a team please come up with a 
> singular answer and at least consult all those who will be effected 
> *before* you change your mind and implement those changes?
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Jason Wever
> Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:15:05PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> > Can we please get a consistent answer on 2.6 kernels when it comes to 
> > sparc?  We used to have sparc-development-sources, which we were told to 
> > consolidate into development-sources.  Now today with absolutely 0 
> > notification what-so-ever, our patchsets to development-sources were 
> > yanked because it wasn't the appropriate place.
> 
> Sorry for the stress.  There really isn't a kernel team anymore, becides
> me and a few others, and we all seem strung accross different timezones
> these days.

That's about the size of most of our teams.  What was so dire about the 
sparc patch to development-sources that it had to be removed right this 
instant without consulting both SPARC and your own kernel team?
 
> Here's the answer:
> 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels
> 	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
> 	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
> 	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
> 	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.
> 
> This is needed so that bugs and security fixes that previously have not
> gotten put into the d-s package get applied across all arches quickly
> and easily.
> 
> I am willing and able to help the sparc team (and any other arch) to
> make the g-d-s package work for them.
> 
> Is that acceptable?

Yes and no.  I'm definitely willing to help work with you to get that 
patch set in there.  However that doesn't change the fact that the 
adjustment of the packages today was very bad as it wasn't communicated at 
all to allow us to at least notify our users that things will change.  
Removing our patchset can and will cause problems for people who were 
using development-sources on sparc, and more than just because they have 
to switch what kernel they use.

If you want to make changes that's fine, just please consider the 
ramifications of those changes and let the people who will be effected 
know with enough time before-hand so that they can do what is needed to 
help make those migration changes as smooth as possible.

- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA7xMddKvgdVioq28RAm1tAJ9yeBm1b/NfRgAr4eDFc2AnMx45EACgjeiC
psWJpRsuvUDxLgQlLvbYxtk=
=n4+v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:50:19PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:15:05PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> > > Can we please get a consistent answer on 2.6 kernels when it comes to 
> > > sparc?  We used to have sparc-development-sources, which we were told to 
> > > consolidate into development-sources.  Now today with absolutely 0 
> > > notification what-so-ever, our patchsets to development-sources were 
> > > yanked because it wasn't the appropriate place.
> > 
> > Sorry for the stress.  There really isn't a kernel team anymore, becides
> > me and a few others, and we all seem strung accross different timezones
> > these days.
> 
> That's about the size of most of our teams.  What was so dire about the 
> sparc patch to development-sources that it had to be removed right this 
> instant without consulting both SPARC and your own kernel team?

There was a bug marked for this.  Sorry for being quick on it.  I was
also told a while ago that the sparc team had their own kernel.  I never
thought it was this one (as the metadata file sure didn't say that...)

> > Here's the answer:
> > 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels
> > 	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
> > 	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
> > 	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
> > 	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.
> > 
> > This is needed so that bugs and security fixes that previously have not
> > gotten put into the d-s package get applied across all arches quickly
> > and easily.
> > 
> > I am willing and able to help the sparc team (and any other arch) to
> > make the g-d-s package work for them.
> > 
> > Is that acceptable?
> 
> Yes and no.  I'm definitely willing to help work with you to get that 
> patch set in there.  However that doesn't change the fact that the 
> adjustment of the packages today was very bad as it wasn't communicated at 
> all to allow us to at least notify our users that things will change.  
> Removing our patchset can and will cause problems for people who were 
> using development-sources on sparc, and more than just because they have 
> to switch what kernel they use.

But they get security fixes for free with that switch, that's a good
reason to do so :)

> If you want to make changes that's fine, just please consider the 
> ramifications of those changes and let the people who will be effected 
> know with enough time before-hand so that they can do what is needed to 
> help make those migration changes as smooth as possible.

Again, sorry for the speed at which this happened, I am very sorry about
it.

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> There was a bug marked for this.  Sorry for being quick on it.  I was
> also told a while ago that the sparc team had their own kernel.  I never
> thought it was this one (as the metadata file sure didn't say that...)

If I'm thinking of the same bug here, the sparc patch had nothing to do
with it.  It wasn't even being used on the user's architecture.  As far as
I know the user never really said it was fixed either.
 
> > > 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels

Isn't this what vanilla-sources is for?

> > > 	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
> > > 	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
> > > 	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
> > > 	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.

When we make changes like this in the future, please give us some headway.

 
> Again, sorry for the speed at which this happened, I am very sorry about
> it.

Not to be a totally insensitive person, but until we have a chance to get 
the patch worked into g-d-s, I'd strongly ask that the changes to 
development sources be reverted.

- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA7xmLdKvgdVioq28RAgLKAJ9kW7t/74CwdDAVdHLh3ob56krvjQCfS97b
qI3AC4f8pw1rALOsRc+MZ7I=
=GoPR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 09 July 2004 06:17 pm, Jason Wever wrote:
> > > > 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels
>
> Isn't this what vanilla-sources is for?

yes and no
vanilla is for 2.4
development is for 2.6

we havent merged them via SLOT because portage would cause a lot of users to 
'upgrade' to 2.6 and we dont want that kind of bug reports on 
forums/bugzilla/mailing lists
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:20:36PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 09 July 2004 06:17 pm, Jason Wever wrote:
> > > > > 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels
> >
> > Isn't this what vanilla-sources is for?
> 
> yes and no
> vanilla is for 2.4

There's a 2.0 and 2.2 kernel in there too, how do people handle those?

> development is for 2.6

What's going to happen when 2.7 is released?

> we havent merged them via SLOT because portage would cause a lot of users to 
> 'upgrade' to 2.6 and we dont want that kind of bug reports on 
> forums/bugzilla/mailing lists

That wouldn't be such a bad thing to force to happen anyway :)

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 09 July 2004 06:30 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> There's a 2.0 and 2.2 kernel in there too, how do people handle those?

they were added after 2.4 so anyone who wanted to use those kernels figured 
out how to trick portage already ;)

> > development is for 2.6
>
> What's going to happen when 2.7 is released?

dont get me wrong, i dont like the state of things, i'm just putting the facts 
on the table

> That wouldn't be such a bad thing to force to happen anyway :)

agreed, but when you disappear from gentoo under the flood of angry users, i'm 
finding your home address so that i can thank you properly (== kick in the 
nads)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:36:35PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > That wouldn't be such a bad thing to force to happen anyway :)
> 
> agreed, but when you disappear from gentoo under the flood of angry users, i'm 
> finding your home address so that i can thank you properly (== kick in the 
> nads)

Heh, I take it you've never seen me in person, have you?  :)

Anyway, we should encourage people to migrate to 2.6.  Remember, if you
don't actually build the kernel after installing the kernel package,
nothing will change.

And we need to shake out any bugs that 2.6 might cause people, other
distros have already switched, why not gentoo also?

thanks,

greg k-h
(who used to be a bouncer at a punk rock bar)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1065 bytes --]

Greg KH wrote: [Fri Jul 09 2004, 07:08:07PM EDT]
> And we need to shake out any bugs that 2.6 might cause people, other
> distros have already switched, why not gentoo also?

Because we don't have to?  That sounds flip, but I don't really mean it
that way.  I use a 2.6 kernel and udev myself, even on my work machines,
and I'm happy to encourage others to do the same, but I've always been
proud of the fact that we're pretty agnostic about the kernel; the user
is free to install 2.4, 2.6, or even 2.2, and the process is exactly the
same for each.  (I'm rather surprised that we have a 2.0 kernel, since I
didn't think it could be compiled w/ a modern version of gcc, but I'm
assuming that it can since it's in the tree.) I believe that such
functional flexibility really does make us better than the average
distro (Boo Boo).

My thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 09 July 2004 07:39 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Because we don't have to?  That sounds flip, but I don't really mean it
> that way.  I use a 2.6 kernel and udev myself, even on my work machines,
> and I'm happy to encourage others to do the same, but I've always been
> proud of the fact that we're pretty agnostic about the kernel; the user
> is free to install 2.4, 2.6, or even 2.2, and the process is exactly the
> same for each.

agreed ... while i'd love everyone to use 2.6, i'm not about to go around 
forcing everyone to install it (which is what we'd be doing)

> (I'm rather surprised that we have a 2.0 kernel, since I 
> didn't think it could be compiled w/ a modern version of gcc, but I'm
> assuming that it can since it's in the tree.)

who knows ... it's in there because a few users requested it ;)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:39:23PM -0400, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Greg KH wrote: [Fri Jul 09 2004, 07:08:07PM EDT]
> > And we need to shake out any bugs that 2.6 might cause people, other
> > distros have already switched, why not gentoo also?
> 
> Because we don't have to?  That sounds flip, but I don't really mean it
> that way.

No, I agree with you.  It's just that there really isn't anyone
supporting the current 2.4 kernel package anymore :(

But that's a different issue...

And there is no new developer effort happening there on the mainline
kernel.org kernel for the most part.

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 04:17:45PM -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > There was a bug marked for this.  Sorry for being quick on it.  I was
> > also told a while ago that the sparc team had their own kernel.  I never
> > thought it was this one (as the metadata file sure didn't say that...)
> 
> If I'm thinking of the same bug here, the sparc patch had nothing to do
> with it.  It wasn't even being used on the user's architecture.  As far as
> I know the user never really said it was fixed either.
>  
> > > > 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels
> 
> Isn't this what vanilla-sources is for?

It would be, but we don't have a 2.6 kernel in that package for some
reason.  If we can do that somehow, that would be fine with me.  John,
any problem with this instead?

And if we do this, we can get rid of the development-sources pacakge
entirely :)

> > > > 	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
> > > > 	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
> > > > 	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
> > > > 	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.
> 
> When we make changes like this in the future, please give us some headway.
> 
>  
> > Again, sorry for the speed at which this happened, I am very sorry about
> > it.
> 
> Not to be a totally insensitive person, but until we have a chance to get 
> the patch worked into g-d-s, I'd strongly ask that the changes to 
> development sources be reverted.

Ok, it's reverted now.

Any timeline for sending the patches to me for g-d-s?  If you have a
pointer to them, I'll add them myself.

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> Ok, it's reverted now.

Thank you :)
 
> Any timeline for sending the patches to me for g-d-s?  If you have a
> pointer to them, I'll add them myself.

Basically the patches we are using now are on the mirrors as 
patches-2.6.7-sparc.tar.bz2.  Wesolows can talk more to what they do but 
there is some major KConfig work done in addition to any possible driver 
updates (depends on version).


I should have some time to look more into it tonight.

- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA7yPJdKvgdVioq28RAiXIAJsH/kc6JltFbyCulRZzDszY1qxPFgCgp3WA
LZMWbO60snz0tQ9tnIxAcxA=
=25Km
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2323 bytes --]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:27:36 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
| 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels

Since when? This is not what we were told when John helped us to move
our sparc patchset from sparc-dev-sources to his shiny new kernel-2
powered development-sources. We were given lengthy assurances that we
would a) be able to keep our sparc patchset there without having to
worry about it b) conflicting with the horridly broken gentoo- patchset
and c) it being repeatedly broken by people doing "security bumps".

We already know that c) hasn't been happening, and our requests for
certain people to show more care when dealing with other archs have
fallen upon deaf ears. Now we're being told that a) and b) are no longer
any good either?

| 	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
| 	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
| 	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
| 	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.

Of course it's a big deal. We've already made our users change kernel
sets once. Now we're going to have to go through all this again because
the kernel team don't talk to each other? And you also expect us to deal
with people who assume that anything labeled gentoo-dev-sources will
include the gentoo- patchset?

| I am willing and able to help the sparc team (and any other arch) to
| make the g-d-s package work for them.

This is exactly what John told us when we switched from s-d-s to d-s.
What assurances do we have that we are not going to be screwed over yet
again the next time your team randomly decides to change policy without
informing anyone? We had these promises already about five kernel minor
versions ago.

To be honest, given the history on this, I think the ideal solution for
this would be an arch-dev-sources which was locked in cvs so that
over-zealous x86-kernel and security people *couldn't* go and break our
kernels *yet again*. I really don't like the implications that we don't
trust other developers on this, but having our kernel being broken three
times in two minor version versions is completely unacceptable.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel team: please make up your mind

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:32:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:27:36 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | 	- development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels
> 
> Since when? This is not what we were told when John helped us to move
> our sparc patchset from sparc-dev-sources to his shiny new kernel-2
> powered development-sources. We were given lengthy assurances that we
> would a) be able to keep our sparc patchset there without having to
> worry about it b) conflicting with the horridly broken gentoo- patchset
> and c) it being repeatedly broken by people doing "security bumps".
> 
> We already know that c) hasn't been happening, and our requests for
> certain people to show more care when dealing with other archs have
> fallen upon deaf ears. Now we're being told that a) and b) are no longer
> any good either?

Ok, sorry about this.  John went away for a long period of time, and I
took over the kernel stuff for him.  I never was aware of this issue,
and by reading the metadata file, I thought this was the case (also see
the point about the vanilla kernel.)

So, after the sparc patches get moved into the g-d-s package, this
package will be a clean kernel.org kernel only.  Is that ok with you?

> | 	- gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all
> | 	  arches.  There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is
> | 	  the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches.
> | 	  Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal.
> 
> Of course it's a big deal. We've already made our users change kernel
> sets once. Now we're going to have to go through all this again because
> the kernel team don't talk to each other? And you also expect us to deal
> with people who assume that anything labeled gentoo-dev-sources will
> include the gentoo- patchset?

Sent those people to me.  I'm more than willing to fix that incorrect
assumption :)

> To be honest, given the history on this, I think the ideal solution for
> this would be an arch-dev-sources which was locked in cvs so that
> over-zealous x86-kernel and security people *couldn't* go and break our
> kernels *yet again*.

If you want to have a sparc-*-sources tree, fine with me.  I'll never
touch it (even for security fixes and other good stuff that you could
get for free by using the g-d-s package...)

That's your call.  I'm offering to help put sparc stuff into g-d-s.  If
the sparc people don't want to do that for whatever reason, I'm also ok
with that, as long as they don't use the d-s kernel package either.

Fair enough?

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list