Re: Single kernel package discussion.
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:52:19PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 09:10:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > >
> > > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)
> > > This is arch-specific headers package containing all the common
> > > headers/configs/Makefiles, etc.
> >
> > In the three level archs, this one is subarch specific.
> >
> > > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(flavour)
> > > This is flavour-specific headers package, containing the
> > > flavour-specific headers/configs/Makefiles, etc. This should
> > > depend on the arch-specific kernel-headers package above, and
> > > setup the symbolic links to the dirs in it, so that the
> > > /usr/src/kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(flavour)
> > > directory contains the complete tree, needed for building of
> > > out-of-tree modules.
> >
> > and this one is exactly the powerpc kernel-build. The only difference is the
> > different naming of the package. I have considered renaming k-b to k-h on
> > powerpc, but since i have a powerpc subarch and a powerpc flavour inside this
> > subarch, there is a name clash that stopped me from doing this renaming, and
> > which could also involve some confusion, so better to be avoided.
> >
> > Alternatively, one could consider :
> >
> > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(subarch)
> >
> > and
> >
> > kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(subarch)-$(flavour)
> >
> > where subarch could be empty in the case of the arches who are only two
> > levels.
>
> I have a couple of questions regarding kernel-headers. The 2.6 packages for
> m68k do not build kernel-headers yet, but they will once I upload 2.6.11.
>
> Can I build kernel-headers-2.6.11-1 as an m68k.deb or does that conflict
> with other arches?
Well, the powerpc packages used to build this.
> Do I need a separate kernel-headers-2.6.11-1-m68k package? m68k is doing
> fine without any 2.6 kernel headers so far, the buildds use a generic k-h
> package.
what need do the buildds have of a kernel-header package ? That is why i
believe we should rename this stuff to kernel-build. The one and only aim of
this package is to build third party modules for official kernels, since glibc
uses their own header packages.
> I don't think we need subarch kernel-headers, so I silently skip your third
> level.
Well, it is needed when a subarch has a subarch-specific patch which patches
the headers in an incompatible way to other subarches of the same arch.
> When I built kernel-headers-2.6.11-1, I got a 5MB package, which I find
> rather big. It includes include/asm-* for all 11 subarches or maybe more, do
> I really need to include all them in m68k package or can I remove everything
> but m68k? Can this be an option in kernel-package? Or maybe is it already?
I have the same on powerpc, and it is provided by kernel-package. It is
probably overkill, and part of the kernel-package post-sarge rewrite ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: