Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (599 mails)

< Previous Next >
[opensuse-factory] distribution meeting - introduction and agenda
  • From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:44:59 +0200
  • Message-id: <holkpospsk.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

We have an internal meeting every few weeks called "dist meeting"
that discusses major technical changes in our distribution.

Since it's not possible for most of you to attend it, I'd like to try
an experiment and share the agenda before the meeting - and the
meeting minutes afterwards with you. I'm asking for your feedback on
the agenda and any comments that you have and will bring those
comments into the meeting and raise the points you've made. Will this
work?

The planned topics for tomorrow's meeting are:

* D-Bus 0.91 and PolicyKit/resmgr

We just switched to D-Bus 0.91 and the question arises whether to
continue to use resmgr or switch to PolicyKit.

* Move to GNOME 2.16

The packagers have started already with the first packages, we want
to discuss the timeframe for the move and the move of GNOME to /usr
(from /opt/gnome).

* SuSEconfig removal

SuSEconfig is currently run after each package installation by YaST
and is a huge bottleneck. Some scripts have already been removed
and we have to discuss how to move on.

* update messages general/conditional (e.g. bind)

During update of packages they could notify users about changes via
email and/or the SuSEplugger (until 10.0, this is not anymore in
10.1). Most of these are outdated and not really usefull anymore
and should be removed. The question is how to handle situations
like bind where config files get rewritten and the user should be
informed if this fails.

* Dropping UP Kernel on i386/x86-64

The proposal by the kernel team is to use only SMP kernels and no UP
kernel. It's already this way on Xen - there is no Xen UP kernel.

Advantages:
One less kernel rpm. On 64bit there will be only two kernel rpms then,
kernel-default and kernel-xen; and with some luck if paravirt ops
works out as designed we can then later drop kernel-xen too and
only ship a single 64bit kernel. 32bit could go down to two.
Less QA.
Less space on ftp servers.
Less build time.

Avoids a lot of problems with install kernel being different from
final kernel. The i386 UP kernel e.g. doesn't support advanced APIC
modes, which broke i386 installation of SLES10 on some
systems. We've had quite a lot of bugs in this area over the years.

Disadvantages:

Will be slightly slower and bigger on UP systems. Most of the
performance difference is fixed up by kraxel's LOCK prefix runtime
patch. Memory usage will be up a bit on UP systems We would lose a
few drivers which are BROKEN_ON_SMP. Usually these are long
unmaintained drivers which are broken for other reasons anyways so
it's not a big loss. Also we never had them in the SMP kernel and
most modern systems run SMP kernels. There might be other bugs
caused by this, but Fedora has done this before us and they didn't
seem to have regretted it so far.


* Linker Options and Optimizations

We plan to use the recently developed linker optimizations for the
GNU hashstyle and use the readonly relocations:

LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=both"
(http://lwn.net/Articles/192082/ )
LDFLAGS="-Wl,-z relro"
(see http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nonselsec.pdf)


Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
< Previous Next >