[gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Travis Tilley]

if we must keep the 2.6 kernels seperate, i suggest that we at least 
change the name of the package. it's incredibly confusing to have your 
stable kernel named 'development-sources' or 'gentoo-dev-sources', and 
there are archs like amd64 that just dont support 2.4 in any way. plus 
with the new change in kernel development, mm-sources has become the 
official development tree.

does anyone object to renaming development-sources to linux26-sources? 
perhaps a similar name change for gentoo-dev-sources and 
hardened-dev-sources?


Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Cory Visi]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:33:49PM -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> if we must keep the 2.6 kernels seperate, i suggest that we at least 
> change the name of the package. it's incredibly confusing to have your 
> stable kernel named 'development-sources' or 'gentoo-dev-sources', and 
> there are archs like amd64 that just dont support 2.4 in any way. plus 
> with the new change in kernel development, mm-sources has become the 
> official development tree.
> 
> does anyone object to renaming development-sources to linux26-sources? 
> perhaps a similar name change for gentoo-dev-sources and 
> hardened-dev-sources?

I object to version numbers in the package name. I wasn't around for 
linux26-headers, so I won't dig up that discussion, but I object to this.

Thanks,
Cory

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

On Monday 23 August 2004 09:33 pm, Travis Tilley wrote:
> does anyone object to renaming development-sources to linux26-sources?
> perhaps a similar name change for gentoo-dev-sources and
> hardened-dev-sources?

why not make SLOTs work before 2.0.51 goes stable
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 838 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1427 bytes --]

Couldn't we just use different ebuild versions?

# emerge ">=gentoo-sources-2.6"
# emerge "=gentoo-sources-2.4.27"

Or something similar? Would that work?

Travis Tilley wrote:
> if we must keep the 2.6 kernels seperate, i suggest that we at least 
> change the name of the package. it's incredibly confusing to have your 
> stable kernel named 'development-sources' or 'gentoo-dev-sources', and 
> there are archs like amd64 that just dont support 2.4 in any way. plus 
> with the new change in kernel development, mm-sources has become the 
> official development tree.
> 
> does anyone object to renaming development-sources to linux26-sources? 
> perhaps a similar name change for gentoo-dev-sources and 
> hardened-dev-sources?
> 
> 
> Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>
> 
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

-- 
()  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email,
/\  vCards, and proprietary formats.
---------------------------------------------------
Peter A. Gordon
E-Mail: admin@ramshacklestudios.com
GPG Public Key ID: 0x109DBECE
GPG Key Fingerprint (SHA1):
   E485 E2F7 11CE F9B2 E3D9 C95D 208F B732 109D BECE
---------------------------------------------------
I digitally sign (using GnuPG) every email I write.
If this or any other email that you recieve from me
   is not signed, or has a bad OpenPGP signature,
   please notify me. Thank you. --Peter
---------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Kumba]

Peter Gordon wrote:

> Couldn't we just use different ebuild versions?
> 
> # emerge ">=gentoo-sources-2.6"
> # emerge "=gentoo-sources-2.4.27"
> 
> Or something similar? Would that work?

This is possible, but not always a preferred solution.  I mix 2.4 and 
2.6 sources for mips-sources, but currently leave 2.6 sources keyword 
masked (despite they're needed for O2 and Origin-class systems).

On mechanism would be profile-level control to mask 2.6 on one profile, 
and enable it on another. though.


--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

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 484 bytes --]

On Monday 23 August 2004 10:43 pm, Peter Gordon wrote:
> Couldn't we just use different ebuild versions?
>
> # emerge ">=gentoo-sources-2.6"
> # emerge "=gentoo-sources-2.4.27"
>
> Or something similar? Would that work?

it should be that way i think but currently (i believe, someone please prove 
me wrong) if you have 'gentoo-sources-2.4.27' and 'gentoo-2.6', portage will 
automatically try to 'upgrade' you to 2.6 from 2.4.27 even if we SLOT them 
differently
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 838 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

On Monday 23 August 2004 11:15 pm, Kumba wrote:
> This is possible, but not always a preferred solution.  I mix 2.4 and
> 2.6 sources for mips-sources, but currently leave 2.6 sources keyword
> masked (despite they're needed for O2 and Origin-class systems).

if they're SLOT-ed differently then things *should* work just fine

> On mechanism would be profile-level control to mask 2.6 on one profile,
> and enable it on another. though.

honestly, no offense meant, but if a user has to change their profile just to 
switch between 2.4 and 2.6, that's just stupid
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 838 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1491 bytes --]


So perhaps they could be slotted as sys-kernel virtuals where 2.6 
ebuilds have a "!( =gentoo-sources-2.4* )" DEPEND and 2.4 ebuilds have a 
"!( =gentoo-sources-2.6* )" DEPEND or something to that effect? Then you 
would not be forced to upgrade, unless you replaced the virtual by 
unmerging one kernel branch and merging the other. Would this work out?

--My $0.02

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 23 August 2004 10:43 pm, Peter Gordon wrote:
> 
>>Couldn't we just use different ebuild versions?
>>
>># emerge ">=gentoo-sources-2.6"
>># emerge "=gentoo-sources-2.4.27"
>>
>>Or something similar? Would that work?
> 
> 
> it should be that way i think but currently (i believe, someone please prove 
> me wrong) if you have 'gentoo-sources-2.4.27' and 'gentoo-2.6', portage will 
> automatically try to 'upgrade' you to 2.6 from 2.4.27 even if we SLOT them 
> differently
> -mike

-- 
()  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email,
/\  vCards, and proprietary formats.
---------------------------------------------------
Peter A. Gordon
E-Mail: admin@ramshacklestudios.com
GPG Public Key ID: 0x109DBECE
GPG Key Fingerprint (SHA1):
   E485 E2F7 11CE F9B2 E3D9 C95D 208F B732 109D BECE
---------------------------------------------------
I digitally sign (using GnuPG) every email I write.
If this or any other email that you recieve from me
   is not signed, or has a bad OpenPGP signature,
   please notify me. Thank you. --Peter
---------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 736 bytes --]

On Monday 23 August 2004 11:58 pm, Peter Gordon wrote:
> So perhaps they could be slotted as sys-kernel virtuals where 2.6
> ebuilds have a "!( =gentoo-sources-2.4* )" DEPEND and 2.4 ebuilds have a
> "!( =gentoo-sources-2.6* )" DEPEND or something to that effect? Then you
> would not be forced to upgrade, unless you replaced the virtual by
> unmerging one kernel branch and merging the other. Would this work out?

no, because some people switch between 2.4 and 2.6 while testing things

imho, portage should have a way to keep kernel upgrades along the major and 
minor versions ... that is, you can upgrade from 2.4.25 to 2.4.26, but 
portage wont try to upgrade you to 2.6.8 ... perhaps it isnt feasible atm ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 838 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --]

On 08/23/04  Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Monday 23 August 2004 10:43 pm, Peter Gordon wrote:
> > Couldn't we just use different ebuild versions?
> >
> > # emerge ">=gentoo-sources-2.6"
> > # emerge "=gentoo-sources-2.4.27"
> >
> > Or something similar? Would that work?
> 
> it should be that way i think but currently (i believe, someone please
> prove me wrong) if you have 'gentoo-sources-2.4.27' and 'gentoo-2.6',
> portage will automatically try to 'upgrade' you to 2.6 from 2.4.27
> even if we SLOT them differently

Well, kernels already have SLOT=$KV.

Marius

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Travis Tilley]

Peter Gordon wrote:

> Couldn't we just use different ebuild versions?
>
> # emerge ">=gentoo-sources-2.6"
> # emerge "=gentoo-sources-2.4.27"
>
> Or something similar? Would that work?


the functionality needed to have something like that work as expected 
wont be in portage until maybe 2.0.53. the package has to have a 
different name for now... the issue is that the name development-sources 
is misleading.

perhaps the 2.4 kernel ebuilds should be in legacy-sources? ;)
from kernel.org:
The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is:  *2.6.8.1 
<http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/patch-2.6.8.1.bz2>


Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>
*

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 831 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 23:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On mechanism would be profile-level control to mask 2.6 on one profile,
> > and enable it on another. though.
> 
> honestly, no offense meant, but if a user has to change their profile just to 
> switch between 2.4 and 2.6, that's just stupid

I think he meant for machines that only work under one of the other. 
Like there would be an default-linux/mips/2004.3 which uses 2.4 and a
default-linux/mips/2004.3/o2 which uses 2.6, so that anyone building for
an o2 box uses a different profile.  The user doesn't switch profiles to
switch kernels in this case, since their subarch is only capable of
running on one kernel set.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1291 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 06:26, Travis Tilley wrote:
> Peter Gordon wrote:
> 
> > Couldn't we just use different ebuild versions?
> >
> > # emerge ">=gentoo-sources-2.6"
> > # emerge "=gentoo-sources-2.4.27"
> >
> > Or something similar? Would that work?
> 
> 
> the functionality needed to have something like that work as expected 
> wont be in portage until maybe 2.0.53. the package has to have a 
> different name for now... the issue is that the name development-sources 
> is misleading.
> 
> perhaps the 2.4 kernel ebuilds should be in legacy-sources? ;)
> from kernel.org:
> The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is:  *2.6.8.1 
> <http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/patch-2.6.8.1.bz2>

While I agree that we shouldn't make a linux26-sources, I think that
making a linux24-sources would not be a problem.  The reason for this is
that the 2.4 version will always be a 2.4 version, whereas the 2.6
versions, *are* what kernel.org considers to be "vanilla" sources.  Why
don't we?  This was kinda my reason for bringing up a Gentoo-wide switch
to 2.6 as the "default" kernels in the near (February) future.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Cory Visi]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:26:06AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> While I agree that we shouldn't make a linux26-sources, I think that
> making a linux24-sources would not be a problem.  The reason for this is
> that the 2.4 version will always be a 2.4 version, whereas the 2.6
> versions, *are* what kernel.org considers to be "vanilla" sources.  Why
> don't we?  This was kinda my reason for bringing up a Gentoo-wide switch
> to 2.6 as the "default" kernels in the near (February) future.

This is still using version numbers in package names. I do not think we 
should take this approach. Aside from modifying portage a little, I liked 
the "legacy-sources" approach the best.

-Cory

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[William Kenworthy]

Why not call a spade a spade?  As a user I think *kernel* version
numbers are good - you know exactly what you are getting. I do agree
that in general, using incremental version numbers is bad, but Kernels
are a special case.  What happens when we get to 2.8? 
gentoo-dev-dev-sources?  We already use modules.autoload.d/kernel-2.4
and 2.6 because the differences are so great - this is quite a neat fix
by the way.  Also linux26-headers which is what they truly are (just
wish they and emerge would play nicely together)

There is a lot of confusion in userland by not calling kernels by their
real name - I include 2.4 and 2.6 as part of the kernel name (i.e., as
alpha text), and the sub version as the true version.  How many times do
you see something like "I am running a 2.6 system" - nobody says "I am
running a gentoo-dev-sources system" as outside of gentoo (and possibly
limited even there), users would have no idea what kernel version that
is - and this information is critical as to how a system works. 
Kernel.org can get away with calling 2.6 current, but a distro does have
to take into account legacy in a sane, manageable and user friendly
fashion.



BillK


On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 23:42, Cory Visi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:26:06AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

>  2.6 as the "default" kernels in the near (February) future.
> 
> This is still using version numbers in package names. I do not think we 
> should take this approach. Aside from modifying portage a little, I liked 
> the "legacy-sources" approach the best.
> 
> -Cory
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1105 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:14:09AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Why not call a spade a spade?  As a user I think *kernel* version
> numbers are good - you know exactly what you are getting. I do agree
> that in general, using incremental version numbers is bad, but Kernels
> are a special case.  What happens when we get to 2.8?

I can't agree more. Whereas some users don't want to know anything about
these versions, most users do. Having the "vanilla" sources called to their
major/minor will make it very clear what kernel they are dealing with.

I can't propose a good naming convention; using separate profiles looks to
have some drawbacks (such as dualbooting different maj/min-trees), using
comparison operations is probably not userfriendly enough.

But I do agree that having foo-sources and foo-dev-sources to distinct
between 2.4 and 2.6 isn't enforceable in the future.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:54:00PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I can't agree more. Whereas some users don't want to know anything about
> these versions, most users do. Having the "vanilla" sources called to their
> major/minor will make it very clear what kernel they are dealing with.

Never mind this; the approach discussed in the other thread suits Gentoo's
needs more. After all, it's indeed rather annoying to give the package a
name with the version _and_ still have separate version information
available.

This was indeed exactly why we have SLOT in the first place.

Sorry for the left/right jumping :)

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen


-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

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