[opensuse-kernel] The use of Kernel:HEAD
Hi, This is pretty much history repeating, but I feel *very* disappointed with the way you treat Factory. Factory tumbles from one RC to another. And while I try to get 3.15.1 in myself, you replace Kernel:HEAD with rc2? What's the thinking behind that? I guess it's not too far stretched to claim that no one is maintaining the kernel-source package in Factory. All packaging activities are done by brainless scripts ;( Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
At Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:02:25 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi,
This is pretty much history repeating, but I feel *very* disappointed with the way you treat Factory. Factory tumbles from one RC to another.
And while I try to get 3.15.1 in myself, you replace Kernel:HEAD with rc2? What's the thinking behind that? I guess it's not too far stretched to claim that no one is maintaining the kernel-source package in Factory. All packaging activities are done by brainless scripts ;(
IMO, a stable rolling release should take Kernel:stable instead. So it's a question again what is FACTORY. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 25.06.2014 11:29, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:02:25 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi,
This is pretty much history repeating, but I feel *very* disappointed with the way you treat Factory. Factory tumbles from one RC to another.
And while I try to get 3.15.1 in myself, you replace Kernel:HEAD with rc2? What's the thinking behind that? I guess it's not too far stretched to claim that no one is maintaining the kernel-source package in Factory. All packaging activities are done by brainless scripts ;(
IMO, a stable rolling release should take Kernel:stable instead. So it's a question again what is FACTORY.
Well, I don't mind what kernel is in factory as long as it works - if that's rc4 or rc7 or final doesn't matter to me. Neither as factory maintainer nor as factory user. But I want it maintained and submitted when it makes sense. What bothers me is this "I commit to git and I'm done - shall random scripts handle the rest" mentality. If that will go away in Kernel:stable, I'm fine with changing. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
At Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:33:41 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 25.06.2014 11:29, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:02:25 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi,
This is pretty much history repeating, but I feel *very* disappointed with the way you treat Factory. Factory tumbles from one RC to another.
And while I try to get 3.15.1 in myself, you replace Kernel:HEAD with rc2? What's the thinking behind that? I guess it's not too far stretched to claim that no one is maintaining the kernel-source package in Factory. All packaging activities are done by brainless scripts ;(
IMO, a stable rolling release should take Kernel:stable instead. So it's a question again what is FACTORY.
Well, I don't mind what kernel is in factory as long as it works - if that's rc4 or rc7 or final doesn't matter to me. Neither as factory maintainer nor as factory user.
But I want it maintained and submitted when it makes sense. What bothers me is this "I commit to git and I'm done - shall random scripts handle the rest" mentality.
All Kernel:* repos _are_ maintained. Kernel:HEAD might be broken sometimes, but it's usually fixed quickly once when recognized. Not much different from the normal packages. I do wonder, however, whether you got actually a submission from Kernel:HEAD to FACTORY. That is, is Kernel:HEAD automatically submitted, or did you take it manually?
If that will go away in Kernel:stable, I'm fine with changing.
A similar breakage can happen on Kernel:stable, too, but maybe less likely because there are less activities there, and the code base is supposed to be stabler. The only drawback would be that we'll miss the integration test of the latest Linus kernel by this change. But, if FACTORY is aimed to be really stably usable, Kernel:stable is definitely a safer choice. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 25.06.2014 14:47, Takashi Iwai wrote:
But I want it maintained and submitted when it makes sense. What bothers me is this "I commit to git and I'm done - shall random scripts handle the rest" mentality.
All Kernel:* repos _are_ maintained. Kernel:HEAD might be broken sometimes, but it's usually fixed quickly once when recognized. Not much different from the normal packages. But I was asking about maintenance of the kernel in factory not in Kernel:*
I do wonder, however, whether you got actually a submission from Kernel:HEAD to FACTORY. That is, is Kernel:HEAD automatically submitted, or did you take it manually?
The latest (automatic) submission is from 2014-06-06, so I submitted it myself as request 238317.
If that will go away in Kernel:stable, I'm fine with changing.
A similar breakage can happen on Kernel:stable, too, but maybe less likely because there are less activities there, and the code base is supposed to be stabler.
The only drawback would be that we'll miss the integration test of the latest Linus kernel by this change. But, if FACTORY is aimed to be really stably usable, Kernel:stable is definitely a safer choice.
Other development projects submit late RCs too if they are confident about it. But they actually think about if to submit or not. And that's what I'm talking about. What I'm missing is the taking care and taking responsibility for the factory kernel. The most important part - the releasing to factory - is left to scripts. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6/25/14, 4:02 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi,
This is pretty much history repeating, but I feel *very* disappointed with the way you treat Factory. Factory tumbles from one RC to another.
And while I try to get 3.15.1 in myself, you replace Kernel:HEAD with rc2? What's the thinking behind that? I guess it's not too far stretched to claim that no one is maintaining the kernel-source package in Factory. All packaging activities are done by brainless scripts ;(
Kernel:HEAD is autogenerated from our master git branch and will always contain the latest upstream kernel, starting with -rc2. That is not going to change. If that's a problem for Factory, then perhaps Factory shouldn't take it automatically regardless of contents. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTrXJfAAoJEB57S2MheeWy0E4QAKhtR3aqH0WXnMpqW1TjbpY3 R6DdiFaKEqoIA4kYBgndtH69C6h71B9KD8Y5BBwCX5GkBUrn6Ocjj0NJlxKBYko6 vLRi0os38wEq9b6sYtbjpXAGkmzq9Qn3z6x7Qk/UvDg6C/mQ4KyHnmu9gFVuwAD0 Q2g4JQnTjHyx9bRaIdxAWn2TrqYKXuhsNiFUC+O8Ko+pv1K/wP3kKgu+s3a7MBXn wLM58OpoTnSp5yuJbcDvMoAwScsrsqjfDvVb731yZIWJf6Y8bcIfwkORkk9ea0TH MkcO66NIJatiETD41mYBgDOlJZ0xr8Dki0G3kKeVe8rUFNvboX1OTuW0eJljg/fR HCPB21fD0Evn0ZlToW93lvySqlpkIM9/lFFtZROpJEqwsxu/kmyy5WBBN8tYtPtr 3ozJmYlKInT8AwGF72G138ISVsuS/D/HP9utvvm3un/MDkTDehhXi7S8gu2nhuy/ AoNtHE3YG6QUj1RY+1X1fWF7lbN0XcCG7vLQ3bqRVixp67sIRLXtR25CisBWCtqN 7UgD/SncnFcWUJKZFMlUOQ78+OFqC3yLnQTCmVlHpLcfmrtg8eb52qeVyq5NGnDO 1m4J2pWj/EqFjKGVTb30rG8QBuWUl6hFkMvGeoKTi8/zCffOoNAoMPTG6m2rZWyo Lk8s0PoqUkTNZ6VWhTj0 =nJG6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 27.06.2014 15:32, schrieb Jeff Mahoney:
On 6/25/14, 4:02 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi,
This is pretty much history repeating, but I feel *very* disappointed with the way you treat Factory. Factory tumbles from one RC to another.
And while I try to get 3.15.1 in myself, you replace Kernel:HEAD with rc2? What's the thinking behind that? I guess it's not too far stretched to claim that no one is maintaining the kernel-source package in Factory. All packaging activities are done by brainless scripts ;(
Kernel:HEAD is autogenerated from our master git branch and will always contain the latest upstream kernel, starting with -rc2. That is not going to change. If that's a problem for Factory, then perhaps Factory shouldn't take it automatically regardless of contents.
That's exactly what I'm talking about! Factory doesn't "take" anything, maintainers submit something - but there is no maintainer for the factory kernel only scripts. Greetings, Stephan - -- Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlOtgiMACgkQwFSBhlBjoJb83QCfXwwJ4MJ/uFHf6LAaI2US+Aj7 WiMAn2TjY+5jeld/wQVnK1P5u/7t9+FR =q9KJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 27.06.2014 16:39, schrieb Stephan Kulow:
That's exactly what I'm talking about! Factory doesn't "take" anything, maintainers submit something - but there is no maintainer for the factory kernel only scripts.
So, I went forward and setup the devel prj for Factory in yet another kernel recompilation prj: devel:openSUSE:Factory:kernel In there I can copypac the kernel I want from the prj I need and push it. Possibly with yet another script :) Greetings, Stephan - -- Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlOthzUACgkQwFSBhlBjoJb7YwCglf2wEVH2Xf1QzkxImae1s00m ihsAniBcexSefbjm/4ry6jPgLBHI4lpC =ICC0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Am 25.06.2014 14:47, schrieb Takashi Iwai:
The only drawback would be that we'll miss the integration test of the latest Linus kernel by this change. But, if FACTORY is aimed to be really stably usable, Kernel:stable is definitely a safer choice.
We don't get that testing anyway: susi:~ # zypper se -s -r factory-oss kernel-default|grep ^i i | kernel-default | package | 3.15.rc7-1.2 | x86_64 | factory-oss Which means it is seriously out of date (serious in the sense of that ugly local root exploit...) I am using Kernel:HEAD on top of factory for a long time now, one reason being that factory alone is too boring and I want to do the testing of Linus' RC but am too lazy to compile my own, but the other reason as that I was tired of never getting any security relevant kernel fixes in Factory. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Jeff Mahoney -
Stefan Seyfried -
Stephan Kulow -
Takashi Iwai