* Re: [gentoo-kernel] virtual/linux-sources-2.6
2011-07-24 15:20 ` Ulrich Mueller
@ 2011-07-24 15:50 ` Krzysztof Pawlik
2011-07-24 16:09 ` Stratos Psomadakis
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Pawlik @ 2011-07-24 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2004 bytes --]
On 24/07/11 17:20, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
>
>> On 07/23/2011 07:09 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>>> Currently virtual/linux-sources-2.6 depends on sys-kernel/foo-2.6*,
>>> should we create virtual/linux-sources-3.0 (and start fixing
>>> ebuilds depending on =virtual/linux-sources-2.6) or just change
>>> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 to depend on >=2.6 ? Opinions?
>
> Currently version 3.0 is only available with vanilla-sources and
> gentoo-sources. Therefore the problem is that virtual/linux-sources-3
> would pull in one of these even for users of other *-sources (e.g.
> hardened).
Yes.
> On the other hand, allowing versions 3.* as dependency of
> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 might be confusing.
>
> Therefore, my suggestion would be as follows:
> 1. Temporarily change the dependency in virtual/linux-sources-2.6
> to >=2.6 in order to resolve the current issues with dependencies.
> 2. Later, when most of *-sources are available in version 3.*, revert
> linux-sources-2.6 to the current dependency and create
> virtual/linux-sources-3. (I think the version should be just 3 and
> not 3.0, unless you want a virtual for 3.0, 3.1, etc.)
>
> Or, a completely different approach: Drop the versioning of the
> virtual altogether and have only virtual/linux-sources-0. (This might
> cause some minor problems for users of 2.4 profiles, but I'd guess
> that the remaining users are experienced enough to handle that.)
What about going with #1 and let's fix the description in
virtual/linux-sources-2.6 to clearly state that it's '2.6 or newer' -- that
could solve the issue at hand and also not confuse everyone.
In the long run I'm in favour of dropping the version from virtual, but this
will be possible when 2.4 is deprecated and removed. Otherwise it's problematic.
--
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-kernel] virtual/linux-sources-2.6
2011-07-24 15:20 ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-07-24 15:50 ` Krzysztof Pawlik
@ 2011-07-24 16:09 ` Stratos Psomadakis
2011-07-24 16:28 ` Krzysztof Pawlik
2011-07-24 17:45 ` Mike Pagano
2011-07-24 20:51 ` Peter Volkov
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Stratos Psomadakis @ 2011-07-24 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Ulrich Mueller; +Cc: gentoo-kernel, kernel-misc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1580 bytes --]
On 07/24/2011 06:20 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Currently version 3.0 is only available with vanilla-sources and
> gentoo-sources. Therefore the problem is that virtual/linux-sources-3
> would pull in one of these even for users of other *-sources (e.g.
> hardened).
>
> On the other hand, allowing versions 3.* as dependency of
> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 might be confusing.
>
> Therefore, my suggestion would be as follows:
> 1. Temporarily change the dependency in virtual/linux-sources-2.6
> to >=2.6 in order to resolve the current issues with dependencies.
> 2. Later, when most of *-sources are available in version 3.*, revert
> linux-sources-2.6 to the current dependency and create
> virtual/linux-sources-3. (I think the version should be just 3 and
> not 3.0, unless you want a virtual for 3.0, 3.1, etc.)
>
> Or, a completely different approach: Drop the versioning of the
> virtual altogether and have only virtual/linux-sources-0. (This might
> cause some minor problems for users of 2.4 profiles, but I'd guess
> that the remaining users are experienced enough to handle that.)
Having separate versions for 2.6 and 3.0 doesn't make much sense. The
are no 'incompatibilities' or major changes between 2.6 and 3 to justify
a separate version/ebuild (unlike the 2.4 -> 2.6 transition). The only
change is the version digits.
I'd prefer the second solution. Could you be more specific about the
problems that users of 2.4 profiles could encounter by that change?
Thanks,
--
Stratos Psomadakis
<psomas@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-kernel] virtual/linux-sources-2.6
2011-07-24 16:09 ` Stratos Psomadakis
@ 2011-07-24 16:28 ` Krzysztof Pawlik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Pawlik @ 2011-07-24 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2600 bytes --]
On 24/07/11 18:09, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> On 07/24/2011 06:20 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Currently version 3.0 is only available with vanilla-sources and
>> gentoo-sources. Therefore the problem is that virtual/linux-sources-3
>> would pull in one of these even for users of other *-sources (e.g.
>> hardened).
>>
>> On the other hand, allowing versions 3.* as dependency of
>> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 might be confusing.
>>
>> Therefore, my suggestion would be as follows:
>> 1. Temporarily change the dependency in virtual/linux-sources-2.6
>> to >=2.6 in order to resolve the current issues with dependencies.
>> 2. Later, when most of *-sources are available in version 3.*, revert
>> linux-sources-2.6 to the current dependency and create
>> virtual/linux-sources-3. (I think the version should be just 3 and
>> not 3.0, unless you want a virtual for 3.0, 3.1, etc.)
>>
>> Or, a completely different approach: Drop the versioning of the
>> virtual altogether and have only virtual/linux-sources-0. (This might
>> cause some minor problems for users of 2.4 profiles, but I'd guess
>> that the remaining users are experienced enough to handle that.)
> Having separate versions for 2.6 and 3.0 doesn't make much sense. The
> are no 'incompatibilities' or major changes between 2.6 and 3 to justify
> a separate version/ebuild (unlike the 2.4 -> 2.6 transition). The only
> change is the version digits.
>
> I'd prefer the second solution. Could you be more specific about the
> problems that users of 2.4 profiles could encounter by that change?
Take a look at this:
.../portage/profiles$ grep -Hr virtual/linux-sources * | grep -v ChangeLog
selinux/packages:>=virtual/linux-sources-2.6
uclibc/sh/2.4/packages:<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
uclibc/arm/2.4/packages:<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
uclibc/arm/armeb/2.4/packages:<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
uclibc/ppc/2.4/packages:<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
uclibc/ppc/hardened/2.4/packages:<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
uclibc/x86/2005.1/2.4/packages:<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
uclibc/x86/2.4/packages:<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
uclibc/x86/hardened/2.4/packages:<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
use.local.desc:virtual/linux-sources:xrc - Add support for infiniband xrc
Note the dependency that forces users of some profiles to have linux-sources-2.4
installed. If we go with unversioned (or to be precise: version 0) virtual those
would match any kernel, not only 2.4.x.
--
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-kernel] virtual/linux-sources-2.6
2011-07-24 15:20 ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-07-24 15:50 ` Krzysztof Pawlik
2011-07-24 16:09 ` Stratos Psomadakis
@ 2011-07-24 17:45 ` Mike Pagano
2011-07-24 18:36 ` Anthony G. Basile
2011-07-24 20:51 ` Peter Volkov
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mike Pagano @ 2011-07-24 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-kernel
On Sunday 24 July 2011 17:20:43 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> > On 07/23/2011 07:09 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >> Currently virtual/linux-sources-2.6 depends on sys-kernel/foo-2.6*,
> >> should we create virtual/linux-sources-3.0 (and start fixing
> >> ebuilds depending on =virtual/linux-sources-2.6) or just change
> >> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 to depend on >=2.6 ? Opinions?
>
> Currently version 3.0 is only available with vanilla-sources and
> gentoo-sources. Therefore the problem is that virtual/linux-sources-3
> would pull in one of these even for users of other *-sources (e.g.
> hardened).
>
> On the other hand, allowing versions 3.* as dependency of
> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 might be confusing.
>
> Therefore, my suggestion would be as follows:
> 1. Temporarily change the dependency in virtual/linux-sources-2.6
> to >=2.6 in order to resolve the current issues with dependencies.
> 2. Later, when most of *-sources are available in version 3.*, revert
> linux-sources-2.6 to the current dependency and create
> virtual/linux-sources-3. (I think the version should be just 3 and
> not 3.0, unless you want a virtual for 3.0, 3.1, etc.)
>
> Or, a completely different approach: Drop the versioning of the
> virtual altogether and have only virtual/linux-sources-0. (This might
> cause some minor problems for users of 2.4 profiles, but I'd guess
> that the remaining users are experienced enough to handle that.)
>
> > CC'ed maintainers / herd.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ulrich
Ulrich, thanks for thinking this through. I do like the #1, #2 combo, myself.
--
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
E-Mail : mpagano@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C 9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3
Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3&op=index
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-kernel] virtual/linux-sources-2.6
2011-07-24 17:45 ` Mike Pagano
@ 2011-07-24 18:36 ` Anthony G. Basile
2011-07-26 13:33 ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-08-05 13:16 ` Ulrich Mueller
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Anthony G. Basile @ 2011-07-24 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-kernel
On 07/24/2011 01:45 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
> On Sunday 24 July 2011 17:20:43 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
>>> On 07/23/2011 07:09 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>>>> Currently virtual/linux-sources-2.6 depends on sys-kernel/foo-2.6*,
>>>> should we create virtual/linux-sources-3.0 (and start fixing
>>>> ebuilds depending on =virtual/linux-sources-2.6) or just change
>>>> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 to depend on >=2.6 ? Opinions?
>>
>> Currently version 3.0 is only available with vanilla-sources and
>> gentoo-sources. Therefore the problem is that virtual/linux-sources-3
>> would pull in one of these even for users of other *-sources (e.g.
>> hardened).
>>
>> On the other hand, allowing versions 3.* as dependency of
>> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 might be confusing.
>>
>> Therefore, my suggestion would be as follows:
>> 1. Temporarily change the dependency in virtual/linux-sources-2.6
>> to >=2.6 in order to resolve the current issues with dependencies.
>> 2. Later, when most of *-sources are available in version 3.*, revert
>> linux-sources-2.6 to the current dependency and create
>> virtual/linux-sources-3. (I think the version should be just 3 and
>> not 3.0, unless you want a virtual for 3.0, 3.1, etc.)
>>
>> Or, a completely different approach: Drop the versioning of the
>> virtual altogether and have only virtual/linux-sources-0. (This might
>> cause some minor problems for users of 2.4 profiles, but I'd guess
>> that the remaining users are experienced enough to handle that.)
>>
>>> CC'ed maintainers / herd.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ulrich
>
> Ulrich, thanks for thinking this through. I do like the #1, #2 combo, myself.
>
I like the idea of dropping versioning altogether to avoid the problems
of upstream changing versioning again --- what happens when 4.x comes
out? But a quick grep of the tree shows atoms like this:
<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
It may be more than just minor problems.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88 33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
GnuPG ID : D0455535
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-kernel] virtual/linux-sources-2.6
2011-07-24 18:36 ` Anthony G. Basile
@ 2011-07-26 13:33 ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-08-05 13:16 ` Ulrich Mueller
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2011-07-26 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-kernel
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Anthony G Basile wrote:
> On 07/24/2011 01:45 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
>> Ulrich, thanks for thinking this through. I do like the #1, #2
>> combo, myself.
> I like the idea of dropping versioning altogether to avoid the
> problems of upstream changing versioning again --- what happens when
> 4.x comes out? But a quick grep of the tree shows atoms like this:
> <virtual/linux-sources-2.5
> It may be more than just minor problems.
Meanwhile ssuominen had committed virtual/linux-sources-3 which
expectedly led to bug 376461. I've removed that ebuild again
and, as a short-term solution, changed dependencies in
linux-sources-2.6 to >=2.6.
Ulrich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-kernel] virtual/linux-sources-2.6
2011-07-24 18:36 ` Anthony G. Basile
2011-07-26 13:33 ` Ulrich Mueller
@ 2011-08-05 13:16 ` Ulrich Mueller
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2011-08-05 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-kernel
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Anthony G Basile wrote:
> I like the idea of dropping versioning altogether to avoid the
> problems of upstream changing versioning again --- what happens when
> 4.x comes out? But a quick grep of the tree shows atoms like this:
> <virtual/linux-sources-2.5
> It may be more than just minor problems.
Coming back to this. The above dependency is only found in the
profiles/uclibc/*/2.4/packages files, where it is always part of the
following group:
<sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.5
<sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.5
<sys-kernel/hardened-sources-2.5
<sys-kernel/vanilla-sources-2.5
<virtual/linux-sources-2.5
The dependency on <sys-kernel/*-sources-2.5 should be enough to ensure
that no newer kernel sources are pulled in.
Apart from these profiles, nothing in the tree depends on
linux-sources-2.4 any more. So I'd say that we could drop versioning
of the virtual altogether.
Ulrich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-kernel] virtual/linux-sources-2.6
2011-07-24 15:20 ` Ulrich Mueller
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-24 17:45 ` Mike Pagano
@ 2011-07-24 20:51 ` Peter Volkov
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Peter Volkov @ 2011-07-24 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-kernel
В Вск, 24/07/2011 в 17:20 +0200, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
> >>>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> > On 07/23/2011 07:09 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >> Currently virtual/linux-sources-2.6 depends on sys-kernel/foo-2.6*,
> >> should we create virtual/linux-sources-3.0 (and start fixing
> >> ebuilds depending on =virtual/linux-sources-2.6) or just change
> >> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 to depend on >=2.6 ? Opinions?
>
> Currently version 3.0 is only available with vanilla-sources and
> gentoo-sources. Therefore the problem is that virtual/linux-sources-3
> would pull in one of these even for users of other *-sources (e.g.
> hardened).
>
> On the other hand, allowing versions 3.* as dependency of
> virtual/linux-sources-2.6 might be confusing.
>
> Therefore, my suggestion would be as follows:
> 1. Temporarily change the dependency in virtual/linux-sources-2.6
> to >=2.6 in order to resolve the current issues with dependencies.
> 2. Later, when most of *-sources are available in version 3.*, revert
> linux-sources-2.6 to the current dependency and create
> virtual/linux-sources-3. (I think the version should be just 3 and
> not 3.0, unless you want a virtual for 3.0, 3.1, etc.)
What are the benefits here?
> Or, a completely different approach: Drop the versioning of the
> virtual altogether and have only virtual/linux-sources-0. (This might
> cause some minor problems for users of 2.4 profiles, but I'd guess
> that the remaining users are experienced enough to handle that.)
And what are the benefits here?
It's better to fix what's broken part and avoid fixing something that
works...
--
Peter.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread