Re: Single kernel package discussion.
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:41:48PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:08:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:52:19PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> I take this as a yes, m68k can build kernel-headers-2.6.11-1_m68k.deb
> > > 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 guess the buildds use linux-kernel-headers. AFAIK there are no third party
> modules for m68k, but maybe it does not hurt to build them, there is some
All the third party modules should build binary modules for all arches, i plan
to make this part of the etch kernel policy or whatever.
> hardware that is not supported by linux yet and at least in one case I know
> of the manufacturer does not give out specs freely, but might agree to a
> binary driver. If somebody would work on this that is... The question was,
> if I build kernel headers, do I need kernel-headers-2.6.11-1-m68k in
> addition to build kernel-headers-2.6.11-1 on m68k?
Well, the kernel-build (the flavour specific part) has the .config, as well as
the Module.symvers and include/linux/version|autoconf.h
> > > 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.
> Does not happen on m68k, we are all friends.
:) Well, on ppc, it does happen on apus.
> > > 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 ?
> I am not sure if I understand the answer. Yes, the package is too big, yes,
> I can remove non-m68k includes to cut it down to a reasonable size, no it is
> not provided by kernel-package?
Yes the packages are 5-6MB, it seems that this is too much for our needs and
that most non-<arch> cruft can be removed. kernel-package doesn't do this, so
either kernel-package needs to be fixed, or we have to build without it.
Fixing kernel-package to play well with the new kernel infrastructure is
prefered here, but in Manoj's hands.
Also, please try to integrate your m68k stuff in Jurij's common package. If we
have the most arch stuff there, it is easier to make decisions that will not
forget some need of some random arch/subarch/flavour.