[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Kernel image and OOT auto builder environment (Was: Using out of tree modules in d-i)?

On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 13:28 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> On May 26, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Absolutely not acceptable.  Out-of-tree modules must not hold up fixes
> > to the kernel.  It was bad enough when their build failures were
> > blocking each other in linux-modules-extra-2.6.
> So how much delay would be acceptable? One day? Twelve hours? Six?
> One?


> My point being, that with a auto build system for kernels and
> OOT's,

Of course, Debian already has an auto-build system.

> at least we get a fighting chance of keeping the OOTs
> up to date. Without it, either the kernel maintainer(s) need
> to build the OOT's as well (and either manually try to fix any
> problems or hand it over to the OOT maintainer), or the OOT
> maintainer needs to monitor for any kernel update and then
> do their build and upload..

The kernel release cycle is 2-3 months.  That's either plenty of time to
fix an OOT module to work with the new kernel version, or else if the
module depends on some deep internal details that changed then it might
take a year to rewrite.

> If you jump from 3.9 (which I have on my production machines) to
> whatever comes next, say 4.0, then yes most likely it will fail.
> _IF_ the Debian GNU/Linux kernel maintainer creates a 4.0 kernel
> packages almost instantaneous when Linus releases it. But if the
> kernel maintainer have a little delay here, say 'a few days', it
> is most likely fixed in ZoL and a new source package is uploaded,
> so when the kernel maintainer DO make a 4.0 kernel, ZoL (and
> hopefully all OOTs) is ready for this..

In reality, most OOT modules in Debian are undermaintained.  But you
already get 2-3 months warning, not just a few days.

> And a jump like this (or 3.8 in wheezy to 4.0 in Jessie for example)
> would _NEVER_ happen within a release we support, only in 'sid', and
> 'a few hours' (maybe even a day?) would be acceptable there... ?

It is also acceptable for things to be temporarily uninstallable in


> Of course a fail will introduce manual labor, but that can never be
> avoided. But with a auto-kernel-build-system (tm), there won't ALWAYS
> be need for manual labor.....

Ben Hutchings
Computers are not intelligent.	They only think they are.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: