* [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? @ 2004-07-09 23:22 Grant Goodyear 2004-07-09 23:32 ` Greg KH 2004-07-09 23:35 ` Kumba 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Grant Goodyear @ 2004-07-09 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --] # ls /usr/portage/sys-kernel -l | grep -v CVS | wc -l 44 Anybody know which kernels are actually being used? Which have active maintainers? Given the goal of a quick response to kernel vulnerabilities, it seems clear that each kernel needs a redundancy of two to three people who can update handle patches when the need arises. (That doesn't mean we need 3*44 kernel devs; a high degree of overlapping would be fine.) -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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? 2004-07-09 23:22 [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? Grant Goodyear @ 2004-07-09 23:32 ` Greg KH 2004-07-09 23:57 ` Mike Frysinger ` (2 more replies) 2004-07-09 23:35 ` Kumba 1 sibling, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2004-07-09 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:22:51PM -0400, Grant Goodyear wrote: > # ls /usr/portage/sys-kernel -l | grep -v CVS | wc -l > 44 > > Anybody know which kernels are actually being used? Which have active > maintainers? Given the goal of a quick response to kernel > vulnerabilities, it seems clear that each kernel needs a redundancy of > two to three people who can update handle patches when the need arises. > (That doesn't mean we need 3*44 kernel devs; a high degree of > overlapping would be fine.) I am trying to slowly weed through all of these, and delete the ones that are no longer needed (I did 2 last week.) Note that a lot of these are either: - arch specific - patchset specific The arch specific ones should have maintainers, the arch maintainers. The patchset specific ones are (in my opinion) pretty much pointless. Sure, some people like them, but it seems like a strange way to track a -mm or -aa or -ck kernel using a ebuild. But that's just my opinion. Oh, remember, those patchset specific kernels usually never get the security updates that the "supported" kernels do (g-s and g-d-s). thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? 2004-07-09 23:32 ` Greg KH @ 2004-07-09 23:57 ` Mike Frysinger 2004-07-10 11:01 ` Michael Kohl 2004-07-10 1:25 ` Terje Kvernes 2004-07-12 20:45 ` Aron Griffis 2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Mike Frysinger @ 2004-07-09 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Friday 09 July 2004 07:32 pm, Greg KH wrote: > The patchset specific ones are (in my opinion) pretty much pointless. > Sure, some people like them, but it seems like a strange way to track a > -mm or -aa or -ck kernel using a ebuild. But that's just my opinion. i think tracking patchsets which can be found via kernel.org is ok ... makes life easy to not have to d/l the linux tarball and patchsets yourself all the time ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? 2004-07-09 23:57 ` Mike Frysinger @ 2004-07-10 11:01 ` Michael Kohl 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Michael Kohl @ 2004-07-10 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 753 bytes --] On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 19:57:44 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote: > i think tracking patchsets which can be found via kernel.org is ok ... > makes life easy to not have to d/l the linux tarball and patchsets > yourself all the time ... FWIW: How about using ketchup for this? It should also save you some bandwith as it only downloads patches, a feature kernel ebuilds don't give you. http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/2976 http://www.selenic.com/ketchup/ketchup-0.7 And I also want to thank Greg for maintaining g-d-s, it's nice to have a competent person looking after my favourite kernel sources. :) Regards, Michael -- www.cargal.org GnuPG-key-ID: 0x90CA09E3 Jabber-ID: citizen428 [at] cargal [dot] org Registered Linux User #278726 [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? 2004-07-09 23:32 ` Greg KH 2004-07-09 23:57 ` Mike Frysinger @ 2004-07-10 1:25 ` Terje Kvernes 2004-07-10 1:28 ` Greg KH 2004-07-12 20:45 ` Aron Griffis 2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Terje Kvernes @ 2004-07-10 1:25 UTC (permalink / raw To: Greg KH; +Cc: gentoo-dev Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> writes: [ ... ] > The arch specific ones should have maintainers, the arch > maintainers. The patchset specific ones are (in my opinion) pretty > much pointless. Sure, some people like them, but it seems like a > strange way to track a -mm or -aa or -ck kernel using a ebuild. But > that's just my opinion. personally, I find it very practical to have emerge fetch and patch the patchset-kernels I use -- I run -mm and occasionally test -ck. this makes it one less thing I have to think about looking for every so often, even though I get l-k delivered. ;-) > Oh, remember, those patchset specific kernels usually never get the > security updates that the "supported" kernels do (g-s and g-d-s). "security" is rarely the reason for using patchset-kernels. for my part, it's mostly to test the newest and greatest sources with a lot of extras. considering FireWire, SATA and a few other tidbits like that are used a lot around here, I tend to test tings quite a bit. and for the record, I really wish my motherboard had something other than Sil3112. SATA compliance with as much fuzz as possible. but, since I'm curious... Greg, are you maintaining g-d-s these days? if so, I could move a box or two over. SATA shouldn't be a problem there, should it? :-) oh, and how you find the time to do all that l-k work and Gentoo is damn impressive. thank you for all the time you give to us users! -- Terje - who wants to try the hotswap SATA canisters on his server. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? 2004-07-10 1:25 ` Terje Kvernes @ 2004-07-10 1:28 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2004-07-10 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw To: Terje Kvernes; +Cc: gentoo-dev On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 03:25:14AM +0200, Terje Kvernes wrote: > but, since I'm curious... Greg, are you maintaining g-d-s these > days? Yes I primarily am (with help from others at times.) > SATA shouldn't be a problem there, should it? :-) Works for me :) > Terje - who wants to try the hotswap SATA canisters on his server. Hm, I don't know if we have hotplug SATA support in the kernel just yet. thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? 2004-07-09 23:32 ` Greg KH 2004-07-09 23:57 ` Mike Frysinger 2004-07-10 1:25 ` Terje Kvernes @ 2004-07-12 20:45 ` Aron Griffis 2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Aron Griffis @ 2004-07-12 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 563 bytes --] Greg KH wrote: [Fri Jul 09 2004, 07:32:25PM EDT] > I am trying to slowly weed through all of these, and delete the ones > that are no longer needed (I did 2 last week.) > > Note that a lot of these are either: > - arch specific > - patchset specific I'd like to switch to g-s and g-d-s for ia64 if possible, but I would need you to add on the ia64 patches from http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/ports/ia64/v2.4/ http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/ports/ia64/v2.6/ Regards, Aron -- Aron Griffis Gentoo Linux Developer [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? 2004-07-09 23:22 [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? Grant Goodyear 2004-07-09 23:32 ` Greg KH @ 2004-07-09 23:35 ` Kumba 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Kumba @ 2004-07-09 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Grant Goodyear wrote: > # ls /usr/portage/sys-kernel -l | grep -v CVS | wc -l > 44 > > Anybody know which kernels are actually being used? Which have active > maintainers? Given the goal of a quick response to kernel > vulnerabilities, it seems clear that each kernel needs a redundancy of > two to three people who can update handle patches when the need arises. > (That doesn't mean we need 3*44 kernel devs; a high degree of > overlapping would be fine.) I'm probably going to dump mips-prepatch-sources (which is an empty directory anyways), as I've decided that maintaining -rc, -pre or -bk ebuilds becomes too much of a hassle as they move too quickly. --Kumba -- "Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-07-12 20:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-07-09 23:22 [gentoo-dev] Too many kernels? Grant Goodyear 2004-07-09 23:32 ` Greg KH 2004-07-09 23:57 ` Mike Frysinger 2004-07-10 11:01 ` Michael Kohl 2004-07-10 1:25 ` Terje Kvernes 2004-07-10 1:28 ` Greg KH 2004-07-12 20:45 ` Aron Griffis 2004-07-09 23:35 ` Kumba
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox