[opensuse-kernel] Keep 3.11.y kernel for openSUSE 13.1 updates?
Hi, Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y? Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past? That aside, personally I would feel much happier using an upstream maintained kernel, so if that means moving to 3.12.y then so be it. I unfortunately do not have any confidence in Ubuntu keeping the wider community's interest at heart, they will just do what works for them. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05.12.2013 14:06, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past? That aside, personally I would feel much happier using an upstream maintained kernel, so if that means moving to 3.12.y then so be it. I
That would also moving 12.2 to 3.4.72 and 12.3 to 3.10.22 - or are we only worried about 13.1 maintenance? Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
At Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:17:12 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 05.12.2013 14:06, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past? That aside, personally I would feel much happier using an upstream maintained kernel, so if that means moving to 3.12.y then so be it. I
That would also moving 12.2 to 3.4.72 and 12.3 to 3.10.22 - or are we only worried about 13.1 maintenance?
I think we can concentrate only on 13.1 maintenance at this point. The situation with 13.1 is somewhat new. Let's compare: - 3.4 kernel on openSUSE 12.2 is a long-time support kernel, and Greg still maintains it. We keep merging the upstream stable 3.4.y. - 3.7 kernel on openSUSE 12.3 is a discontinued one and no one actually maintains in the upstream. We (SUSE) eventually pick up fixes occasionally. Thus the code flux is fairly low; i.e. very little fixes have been done for 12.3 kernels. - 3.11 kernel on openSUSE 13.1 is the one already discontinued by the upstream, but Ubuntu continues to care and work on it. This makes a dilemma. Now, we have a few options: A. Don't update any longer base kernel, just pick up a few critical fixes. This is equivalent with what we did for openSUSE 12.3. B. Take Ubuntu 3.11.y stable updates. We'll get stable backports gratis, but hey, it's driven by them. C. Move up on 3.12.y and later kernel maintained by the upstream. This is basically a rolling update, and openSUSE 13.1 kernel will catch up openSUSE 13.2 kernel at some point. (Or, it'll stay at some long-time support kernel.) For me, the option C sounds most attractive. But, maybe I'm biased since I'm one of upstream kernel devs. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 05 December 2013 15.21:21 Takashi Iwai wrote:
B. Take Ubuntu 3.11.y stable updates. We'll get stable backports gratis, but hey, it's driven by them.
They will not keep it longer than April, I've a doubt they will use that one for LTS 14.04 We have to survive further than that, especially if we want to evergreen 13.1 -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net S�rl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:05:06PM +0100, Bruno Friedmann wrote:
On Thursday 05 December 2013 15.21:21 Takashi Iwai wrote:
B. Take Ubuntu 3.11.y stable updates. We'll get stable backports gratis, but hey, it's driven by them.
They will not keep it longer than April, I've a doubt they will use that one for LTS 14.04
They have already publically stated that they will not use that one for their next LTS kernel, for that they will be using 3.13. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/5/13, 8:17 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 05.12.2013 14:06, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past? That aside, personally I would feel much happier using an upstream maintained kernel, so if that means moving to 3.12.y then so be it. I
That would also moving 12.2 to 3.4.72 and 12.3 to 3.10.22 - or are we only worried about 13.1 maintenance?
These are "standard" stable updates. They happen more or less automatically already when Jiri Slaby has spare cycles. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05.12.2013 17:51, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 12/5/13, 8:17 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 05.12.2013 14:06, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past? That aside, personally I would feel much happier using an upstream maintained kernel, so if that means moving to 3.12.y then so be it. I
That would also moving 12.2 to 3.4.72 and 12.3 to 3.10.22 - or are we only worried about 13.1 maintenance?
These are "standard" stable updates. They happen more or less automatically already when Jiri Slaby has spare cycles.
Updating from 3.7 to 3.10 in 12.3 in spare cycles? I don't think that will be fair to our users. Greetings, Stephan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFSoZTIwFSBhlBjoJYRAktFAKCodJVCVqZmARVLbfdTS3iEaj5DtQCdFjtu XF4tTvXnPAe6eXr75OENIGM= =9Lo+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/6/13, 4:11 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 05.12.2013 17:51, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 12/5/13, 8:17 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 05.12.2013 14:06, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past? That aside, personally I would feel much happier using an upstream maintained kernel, so if that means moving to 3.12.y then so be it. I
That would also moving 12.2 to 3.4.72 and 12.3 to 3.10.22 - or are we only worried about 13.1 maintenance?
These are "standard" stable updates. They happen more or less automatically already when Jiri Slaby has spare cycles.
Updating from 3.7 to 3.10 in 12.3 in spare cycles? I don't think that will be fair to our users.
Ah, I misread and didn't parse the release-version mapping. No, we don't have any plans to propose something like that. Just normal long-term -stable updates. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
Am 05.12.2013 14:06, schrieb Andrew Wafaa:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past? That aside, personally I would feel much happier using an upstream maintained kernel, so if that means moving to 3.12.y then so be it. I unfortunately do not have any confidence in Ubuntu keeping the wider community's interest at heart, they will just do what works for them.
I'm pretty sure that during the 2.4 and 2.6 kernel series there were patch level updates. Since the versioning changed the minor number is more what the patch level was in the past and those we had for sure at some point. I'm not a kernel expert and don't follow it well and the decision should be on the kernel maintainers side taking into consideration the risks and benefits. I would propose some testing beforehand though. Probably after preparation of such an update let it long enough in the update test queue for example and announce its availability to a broader audience notice it and give it a try. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Wafaa <awafaa@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past?
You should check with the Evergreen team, but I believe they change the kernel out to align with the next newer SLES kernel. So if you consider evergreen as part of openSUSE, then yes openSUSE has done kernel version changes in the past. (I haven't fully kept up with this, the kernel upgrade may be an optional feature of Evergreen and not all users are upgraded.) Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:24:51AM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Wafaa <awafaa@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past?
You should check with the Evergreen team, but I believe they change the kernel out to align with the next newer SLES kernel. So if you consider evergreen as part of openSUSE, then yes openSUSE has done kernel version changes in the past.
(I haven't fully kept up with this, the kernel upgrade may be an optional feature of Evergreen and not all users are upgraded.)
Its a Evergreen Feature. This of course could be considerd for 13.1, to align with the SLE12 kernel. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:24:51AM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Wafaa <awafaa@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past?
You should check with the Evergreen team, but I believe they change the kernel out to align with the next newer SLES kernel. So if you consider evergreen as part of openSUSE, then yes openSUSE has done kernel version changes in the past.
(I haven't fully kept up with this, the kernel upgrade may be an optional feature of Evergreen and not all users are upgraded.)
Its a Evergreen Feature.
This of course could be considerd for 13.1, to align with the SLE12 kernel.
Ciao, Marcus
My google-foo is failing me. When is SLE12 expected to release? And with what kernel? And since 13.1 is already designated as a Evergreen supported release, one could argue that updating the kernel to match a SLES kernel is being done to align with 13.1's Evergreen designation. It certainly seems it would lighten the load on the evergreen team to have 13.1 already at the LTS kernel level they prefer. Clearly, I vote for updating the 13.1 kernel to align with Evergreen's needs at some point in the next 18 months. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:12:09AM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:24:51AM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Wafaa <awafaa@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past?
You should check with the Evergreen team, but I believe they change the kernel out to align with the next newer SLES kernel. So if you consider evergreen as part of openSUSE, then yes openSUSE has done kernel version changes in the past.
(I haven't fully kept up with this, the kernel upgrade may be an optional feature of Evergreen and not all users are upgraded.)
Its a Evergreen Feature.
This of course could be considerd for 13.1, to align with the SLE12 kernel.
Ciao, Marcus
My google-foo is failing me. When is SLE12 expected to release? And with what kernel?
Second half of 2014. Not sure I am allowed to tell the kernel version yet. But it is similar to the product version.
And since 13.1 is already designated as a Evergreen supported release, one could argue that updating the kernel to match a SLES kernel is being done to align with 13.1's Evergreen designation. It certainly seems it would lighten the load on the evergreen team to have 13.1 already at the LTS kernel level they prefer.
Clearly, I vote for updating the 13.1 kernel to align with Evergreen's needs at some point in the next 18 months.
In the end, it would currently be mostly the call for Maintenance and the Kernel Team. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
Clearly, I vote for updating the 13.1 kernel to align with Evergreen's needs at some point in the next 18 months.
In the end, it would currently be mostly the call for Maintenance and the Kernel Team.
Well my hope is that only one kernel version update occur for the full 3-year life of 13.1 (including the evergreen period). Having that upgrade occur prior to the transition to the evergreen team providing support would be a nice value add. Greg -- Greg Freemyer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/5/13, 11:40 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:12:09AM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:24:51AM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Wafaa <awafaa@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 5 December 2013 11:28, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Has the precedence been set of changing version of the kernel after release, I don't remember it happening in the past?
You should check with the Evergreen team, but I believe they change the kernel out to align with the next newer SLES kernel. So if you consider evergreen as part of openSUSE, then yes openSUSE has done kernel version changes in the past.
(I haven't fully kept up with this, the kernel upgrade may be an optional feature of Evergreen and not all users are upgraded.)
Its a Evergreen Feature.
This of course could be considerd for 13.1, to align with the SLE12 kernel.
Ciao, Marcus
My google-foo is failing me. When is SLE12 expected to release? And with what kernel?
Second half of 2014.
Not sure I am allowed to tell the kernel version yet. But it is similar to the product version.
Yeah, you are. :) The branch is already public. It's based on 3.12. Using the SLE12 branch directly may be tricky since there are different architecture targets for openSUSE and SLES. Unfortunately, those are details I can't get into just yet. I can share that we are not building 32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> wrote:
The branch is already public. It's based on 3.12.
Using the SLE12 branch directly may be tricky since there are different architecture targets for openSUSE and SLES. Unfortunately, those are details I can't get into just yet. I can share that we are not building 32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
I don't think Evergreen uses the SLES kernel, but it does use the same version as SLES and then it pulls in patches from the SLES kernel set of patches. I don't think it pulls all of them in, but that is a separate discussion. So switching oS 13.1 to the 3.12 kernel may involve some significant 32-bit testing, but it should eliminate the openSUSE team having to search for patches and then having to backport them to the 3.11 kernel. Hopefully the end result is a better kernel with less work expended. Greg -- Greg Freemyer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 12:49:03PM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> wrote:
Using the SLE12 branch directly may be tricky since there are different architecture targets for openSUSE and SLES. Unfortunately, those are details I can't get into just yet. I can share that we are not building 32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
Even if there were such plans, I have a feeling it is a bit late to do that in 13.1 :-)
I don't think Evergreen uses the SLES kernel, but it does use the same version as SLES and then it pulls in patches from the SLES kernel set of patches. I don't think it pulls all of them in, but that is a separate discussion.
From the technical point of view, I created a new branch from SLE11-SP2 at some point, merged the config files to match openSUSE-11.4 ones as closely as possible and did the ext4 related changes (ceph ones came later). Since then I keep merging SLE11-SP2 branch into evergreen-11.4 from time to time - usually once a week - or when a SLE11-SP2 update is submitted. Evergreen 11.4 kernel updates match SLE 11 SP2 updates. As
The Evergreen 11.4 kernel is based on SLE 11 SP2 kernel with only few code changes (IIRC I only removed the tricks making ext4 read-only and picked a bit more of the ceph backports as the way it is done in SLE11-SP2 breaks the build in parts which are disabled in SLE11-SP2 but enabled in openSUSE-11.4) but with different config(s) and some changes in the packaging. there are almost no code changes, the conflicts are only in config/ and, of course, kabi/ must be updated independently. For 13.1, IMHO the same approach based on SLE12 branch (i.e. SLE 12 GA) would be the best solution (or the least bad one). This time I want to start as soon as possible and provide the kernel as an alternative in OBS so that we can get more testing before 13.1 regular support finishes. But all this is still open to discussion - actually there has been no discussion about Evergreen 13.1 kernel yet (except this thread). Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/05/2013 11:18 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
The branch is already public. It's based on 3.12.
Using the SLE12 branch directly may be tricky since there are different architecture targets for openSUSE and SLES. Unfortunately, those are details I can't get into just yet. I can share that we are not building 32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
I hope that i586 support is not dropped by openSUSE as I have 3 32-bit systems running openSUSE 12.3 or 13.1. Larry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Le Thursday 05 December 2013 à 12:23 -0600, Larry Finger a écrit :
On 12/05/2013 11:18 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
The branch is already public. It's based on 3.12.
Using the SLE12 branch directly may be tricky since there are different architecture targets for openSUSE and SLES. Unfortunately, those are details I can't get into just yet. I can share that we are not building 32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
I hope that i586 support is not dropped by openSUSE as I have 3 32-bit systems running openSUSE 12.3 or 13.1.
Same here, I still have 2 32-bit x86 machines I use daily, and a few old laptops I may revive for testing or special tasks. So I hope openSUSE will keep the i386 kernels for several years. At least until 2016 or even 2018, remember that 32-bit x86 machines have been sold until 2008! We may not have to keep all the flavors though. I suppose some of them like ec2 or xen can go away if they are no longer needed, and trace, debug and vanilla are not mandatory either if the user base shrinks. And then I suppose we can keep only one or two of desktop, default and pae. As long as I have one kernel which can boot all my old machines with decent performance, I'm happy. -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 Support -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
El 05/12/13 14:18, Jeff Mahoney escribió: I can share that we are not building
32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
Wow, that's good news, for openSUSE we must start by changing the download pages that default to 32 bit isos.. then slowly fade i586 away.. I propose 2 releases from now on. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
El 05/12/13 14:18, Jeff Mahoney escribió:
I can share that we are not building
32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
Wow, that's good news, for openSUSE we must start by changing the download pages that default to 32 bit isos.. then slowly fade i586 away.. I propose 2 releases from now on.
As far as I know, VMplayer (free) only supports 32-bit, so until that changes, openSUSE needs to offer a 32-bit version. Changing the default should probably happen now. 64-bit is already more popular to choose. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
В Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:00:00 -0500 Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com> пишет:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
El 05/12/13 14:18, Jeff Mahoney escribió:
I can share that we are not building
32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
Wow, that's good news, for openSUSE we must start by changing the download pages that default to 32 bit isos.. then slowly fade i586 away.. I propose 2 releases from now on.
As far as I know, VMplayer (free) only supports 32-bit, so until that changes, openSUSE needs to offer a 32-bit version.
Player supports 64 bit on suitable hardware (you need hardware virtualization support).
Changing the default should probably happen now. 64-bit is already more popular to choose.
Greg
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@gmail.com> wrote:
В Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:00:00 -0500 Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com> пишет:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
El 05/12/13 14:18, Jeff Mahoney escribió:
I can share that we are not building
32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
Wow, that's good news, for openSUSE we must start by changing the download pages that default to 32 bit isos.. then slowly fade i586 away.. I propose 2 releases from now on.
As far as I know, VMplayer (free) only supports 32-bit, so until that changes, openSUSE needs to offer a 32-bit version.
Player supports 64 bit on suitable hardware (you need hardware virtualization support).
That's a significant requirement that lots of current hardware doesn't meet. 32-bit looks like it will hang around for long time as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually surprised SLES is able to ignore that user group, but that is not relevant to this list. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
El 08/12/13 00:07, Greg Freemyer escribió: I'm actually surprised SLES is able to ignore that user
group, but that is not relevant to this list.
SLE is sold to be used with certified hardware.. I am pretty sure SUSE would keep providing i586 support if there was enough demand to justify the investment. Also note that we are talking about a product that will hit the market in late 2014. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/07/2013 10:07 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@gmail.com> wrote:
В Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:00:00 -0500 Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com> пишет:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
El 05/12/13 14:18, Jeff Mahoney escribió:
I can share that we are not building
32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
Wow, that's good news, for openSUSE we must start by changing the download pages that default to 32 bit isos.. then slowly fade i586 away.. I propose 2 releases from now on.
As far as I know, VMplayer (free) only supports 32-bit, so until that changes, openSUSE needs to offer a 32-bit version.
Player supports 64 bit on suitable hardware (you need hardware virtualization support).
That's a significant requirement that lots of current hardware doesn't meet.
32-bit looks like it will hang around for long time as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually surprised SLES is able to ignore that user group, but that is not relevant to this list.
SLES users tend not to dig out old hardware to run a new version of the OS on it. PAE was an architectural workaround and there's no excuse to use it anymore now that we've had real 64-bit mode for a long time. The 4 GB limit is way too low for anything but the smallest server workloads especially when you account for the fact that it basically locks you into never adding more memory at full performance. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 12/07/2013 10:07 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@gmail.com> wrote:
В Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:00:00 -0500 Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com> пишет:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
El 05/12/13 14:18, Jeff Mahoney escribió: Wow, that's good news, for openSUSE we must start by changing the download pages that default to 32 bit isos.. then slowly fade i586 away.. I propose 2 releases from now on. 32-bit looks like it will hang around for long time as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually surprised SLES is able to ignore that user group, but that is not relevant to this list.
SLES users tend not to dig out old hardware to run a new version of the OS on it.
But openSUSE users do want to be able to run new versions of the OS on existing hardware. Not everybody is in a position to rush out and buy the latest sparkly goodies, even at Xmas. And as has been pointed out, there are ethical questions with encouraging trashing of otherwise good machines. So I suggest openSUSE forgets about stopping building 32-bit versions until there is good evidence that nobody wants it. i.e. make the decision based on user demand. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 09.12.2013 11:25, Dave Howorth wrote:
So I suggest openSUSE forgets about stopping building 32-bit versions until there is good evidence that nobody wants it. i.e. make the decision based on user demand.
I don't think openSUSE needs to please *everyone*. We can easily drop i586 to the same status as e.g. arm has now: we still build for it, but we don't give guarantees. Not saying it will happen 2013, but it's a viable option for the future. "nobody wants it" will never happen. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 09.12.2013 11:25, Dave Howorth wrote:
So I suggest openSUSE forgets about stopping building 32-bit versions until there is good evidence that nobody wants it. i.e. make the decision based on user demand.
I don't think openSUSE needs to please *everyone*. We can easily drop i586 to the same status as e.g. arm has now: we still build for it, but we don't give guarantees.
Not saying it will happen 2013, but it's a viable option for the future. "nobody wants it" will never happen.
Greetings, Stephan
Yes, I did consider the potential problem of using normal English among a literal-minded audience. So please substitute a suitably precise phrase of your choice for the word nobody, compatible with the explicatory 'make the decision based on user demand'. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
On 09.12.2013 11:25, Dave Howorth wrote:
So I suggest openSUSE forgets about stopping building 32-bit versions until there is good evidence that nobody wants it. i.e. make the decision based on user demand.
I don't think openSUSE needs to please *everyone*. We can easily drop i586 to the same status as e.g. arm has now: we still build for it, but we don't give guarantees.
Not saying it will happen 2013, but it's a viable option for the future. "nobody wants it" will never happen.
Greetings, Stephan
Is there some reason not to change the download pages default to 64 bit now? Does it need to wait for 13.2 for some reason? Greg -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 09.12.2013 14:22, Greg Freemyer wrote:
Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
On 09.12.2013 11:25, Dave Howorth wrote:
So I suggest openSUSE forgets about stopping building 32-bit versions until there is good evidence that nobody wants it. i.e. make the decision based on user demand.
I don't think openSUSE needs to please *everyone*. We can easily drop i586 to the same status as e.g. arm has now: we still build for it, but we don't give guarantees.
Not saying it will happen 2013, but it's a viable option for the future. "nobody wants it" will never happen.
Greetings, Stephan
Is there some reason not to change the download pages default to 64 bit now? Does it need to wait for 13.2 for some reason?
Send a pull request: https://github.com/openSUSE/software-o-o Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/9/13, 5:25 AM, Dave Howorth wrote:
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 12/07/2013 10:07 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@gmail.com> wrote:
В Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:00:00 -0500 Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com> пишет:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
El 05/12/13 14:18, Jeff Mahoney escribió: Wow, that's good news, for openSUSE we must start by changing the download pages that default to 32 bit isos.. then slowly fade i586 away.. I propose 2 releases from now on. 32-bit looks like it will hang around for long time as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually surprised SLES is able to ignore that user group, but that is not relevant to this list.
SLES users tend not to dig out old hardware to run a new version of the OS on it.
But openSUSE users do want to be able to run new versions of the OS on existing hardware. Not everybody is in a position to rush out and buy the latest sparkly goodies, even at Xmas. And as has been pointed out, there are ethical questions with encouraging trashing of otherwise good machines.
So I suggest openSUSE forgets about stopping building 32-bit versions until there is good evidence that nobody wants it. i.e. make the decision based on user demand.
Absolutely. I'm just explaining the reasons for not supporting it any longer with SLES. That's the decision made based on user demand. I'm not proposing that the same demands exist in the openSUSE community. My initial comment was more my personal opinion as someone who doesn't have any 32-bit hardware left. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
On 2013-12-07 12:12 (GMT-0500) Cristian Rodríguez composed:
Jeff Mahoney composed:
I can share that we are not building
32-bit kernels for any architecture, so a SLE12 kernel used on openSUSE will have zero i586 testing performed on it as part of the SLE testing matrix. While I certainly wouldn't mind it happening, I don't know of any openSUSE plans to drop i586 support just yet.
Wow, that's good news, for openSUSE we must start by changing the download pages that default to 32 bit isos.. then slowly fade i586 away.. I propose 2 releases from now on.
I propose do no fade in foreseeable future, and beyond. I only started doing any 64 bit installs on my own 64 bit capable systems less than a year ago, and observe more cost than benefit except for video applications (and virtualization, which I don't do). I have far more non-capable systems in use than capable, and find whatever benefit 64 bit has over 32 to be outweighed by the *nuisances* and worse that 64 brings: 1-Requires more installation space due to need for various 32 bit libs 2-More RAM used per app and by OS 3-Lack of various native 64 bit plugins and certain apps 4-Lack of apparent speed benefit in popular apps 5-Increasing RAM above 1G or 2G is not cheap when mobo has .5G, 1G or 2G limit, requiring not only newer mobo, but most likely newer CPU and RAM and burdening landfills with otherwise useful equipment 6-inefficient zypper https://features.opensuse.org/316759 Email, social media, banking, shopping & other common computing tasks do not require fast multicore CPUs, 4G+ RAM and 8G+ broadband connectivity. Thus 64 bit for such use offers no material advantages, and comes with non-zero cost. Dropping 32 bit while useful 32 bit systems remain plentiful and useful is ecologically repugnant. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Am 07.12.2013 19:15, schrieb Felix Miata:
1-Requires more installation space due to need for various 32 bit libs 2-More RAM used per app and by OS
Those two are also important for virtual machines (appliances for example).
3-Lack of various native 64 bit plugins and certain apps 4-Lack of apparent speed benefit in popular apps
64bit is never faster. It just allows to address more memory, but unless you need to address way more than a few GB, it does not bring any benefits. So yeah, go ahead and drop support for i586. One more way to make openSUSE less useful... -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- 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 2013-12-07 21:56, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
So yeah, go ahead and drop support for i586. One more way to make openSUSE less useful...
There are many people using 32 machines out there, silently. My workhorses are 64 bit, but I also have 32 bit machines, one of them running 24/7. I can buy cheap old computers or laptops and use them for simple tasks. And then there are many people out there in less privileged countries using older or simpler hardware. We would ban them, out of openSUSE for ever. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 12.3 x86_64 "Dartmouth" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlKjjbgACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VvpgCdGnntp0fSmXFWz6WLvzvHt/Wr wssAn1iASrneSExfnICn2tWAKwb7kR5K =8r+f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Even if I got rid of my last 32-bit system on a physical machine more than five years ago, I agree that we shouldn't drop i586 support in OpenSuSE yet. For example, for last few versions I've been seeding OpenSuSE images via bittorent and 13.1 is the first where I have significantly bigger share ratio for x86_64 image than for i586 one. So far, the ratio is about 2:1, even for 12.3 the difference was only marginal. Personally, I consider this quite sad but I think we can't ignore the fact that a lot of our users keep using i586 for various reasons even if then don't need to. That being said... On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 09:56:18PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
64bit is never faster. It just allows to address more memory, but unless you need to address way more than a few GB, it does not bring any benefits.
On the other hand, I really don't think we should use claims like this to support keeping of i586 because everyone can simply check that this is far from being true. For example, let's take the openssl binary from our 12.3 package (x86_64 and i586) and run "openssl speed rsa1024" (on the same system): x86_64: sign verify sign/s verify/s rsa 1024 bits 0.000221s 0.000014s 4517.3 72704.6 i586: sign verify sign/s verify/s rsa 1024 bits 0.000890s 0.000044s 1123.2 22788.6 There _are_ benefits of x86_64 and x86_64 is sometimes faster than i586 - and sometimes it is _way_ faster than i586. And you don't need applications using gigabytes of memory. On x86_64, we can process more data in one instruction and we have more registers available - which is also reflected in much more efficient ABI. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
El 07/12/13 19:21, Michal Kubecek escribió:
Even if I got rid of my last 32-bit system on a physical machine more than five years ago, I agree that we shouldn't drop i586 support in OpenSuSE yet.
That's why I proposed to first change the default offer in the download page which currently defaults to i586 iso , then deprecate the arch and then after a few more releases (2 at least) drop the build completely. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
El 07/12/13 19:21, Michal Kubecek escribió:
Even if I got rid of my last 32-bit system on a physical machine more than five years ago, I agree that we shouldn't drop i586 support in OpenSuSE yet.
That's why I proposed to first change the default offer in the download page which currently defaults to i586 iso , then deprecate the arch and then after a few more releases (2 at least) drop the build completely.
I agree with changing the default. 64-bit is finally more popular than 32-bit so the default should change. But I'd be willing to bet openSUSE will still have x86 ISOs in 2016 (which seems to be the year of prediction for openSUSE). Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/07/2013 03:56 PM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Am 07.12.2013 19:15, schrieb Felix Miata:
1-Requires more installation space due to need for various 32 bit libs 2-More RAM used per app and by OS
Those two are also important for virtual machines (appliances for example).
3-Lack of various native 64 bit plugins and certain apps 4-Lack of apparent speed benefit in popular apps
64bit is never faster. It just allows to address more memory, but unless you need to address way more than a few GB, it does not bring any benefits.
So yeah, go ahead and drop support for i586. One more way to make openSUSE less useful...
64-bit mode has access to twice the general purpose registers, so it /can/ actually be faster. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
64bit is never faster.
Where did you get this information from, please? The code generated for x86_64 can be much faster in data operations, because compiler can make use of wider range of CPU registers, and register access is obviously faster than accessing memory. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Am 12.12.2013 11:30, schrieb Jiri Kosina:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
64bit is never faster.
Where did you get this information from, please?
yes, that was a bit bold :-) Let's rephrase "64 bit is not necessarily faster".
The code generated for x86_64 can be much faster in data operations, because compiler can make use of wider range of CPU registers, and register access is obviously faster than accessing memory.
And cache is faster than memory, too, so 64 bit code with its higher memory footprint might be slower :-) -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12.12.2013, at 12:03, Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@googlemail.com> wrote:
Am 12.12.2013 11:30, schrieb Jiri Kosina:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
64bit is never faster.
Where did you get this information from, please?
yes, that was a bit bold :-)
Let's rephrase "64 bit is not necessarily faster".
The code generated for x86_64 can be much faster in data operations, because compiler can make use of wider range of CPU registers, and register access is obviously faster than accessing memory.
And cache is faster than memory, too, so 64 bit code with its higher memory footprint might be slower :-)
So according to that logic we should only have an x32 (x86_64 with 32-bit long/pointers) and a full x86_64 distribution right? No need for i386 :) Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
The code generated for x86_64 can be much faster in data operations, because compiler can make use of wider range of CPU registers, and register access is obviously faster than accessing memory.
And cache is faster than memory, too, so 64 bit code with its higher memory footprint might be slower :-)
Linux x32 ABI is trying to overcome at least the "data" portion of this problem (of course instriction cache would still need to operate on 64 bits). -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Am 12.12.2013 14:01, schrieb Jiri Kosina:
Linux x32 ABI is trying to overcome at least the "data" portion of this problem (of course instriction cache would still need to operate on 64 bits).
Ok, but I don't think we are using this, yet. At least I can see clearly much higher memory demand on x86_64 than on i586 (a desktop with just 1GB of RAM is totally unusable on x86_64, while it works well on an old i686. Same config with XFCE, Thunderbird, Firefox). But as I wrote further up in the thread, *I* don't mind if openSUSE drops i586, because thanks to LF's yocto project, I don't mind just building my own distribution. Might be less annoying in the long run anyway :-) -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:15:28 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
1-Requires more installation space due to need for various 32 bit libs
That's true, and I don't get it. On a freshly installed 13.1 x86_64 system, I have 63 32bit packages installed, for a total of over 41 MB. I see I need glibc-32bit for master-boot-code (which surprisingly is only built for i586), but the remaining ones I have no idea. If I ask zypper to remove them all but glibc-32bit, it says it would be happy to do so, so there are no dependencies. So I am really curious why these are installed by default. What do I get from having systemd-32bit, samba-32bit, pam-32bit etc. installed on a 64-bit system? -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 Support -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
El 08/12/13 14:42, Jean Delvare escribió:
So I am really curious why these are installed by default. What do I get from having systemd-32bit, samba-32bit, pam-32bit etc. installed on a 64-bit system?
Those are recommended packages, if you upgrade with --no-recommends they are not installed. I disagree with the addition of these 32bit "recommends" as well. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Am 08.12.2013 18:42, schrieb Jean Delvare:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:15:28 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
1-Requires more installation space due to need for various 32 bit libs
That's true, and I don't get it. On a freshly installed 13.1 x86_64 system, I have 63 32bit packages installed, for a total of over 41 MB. I see I need glibc-32bit for master-boot-code (which surprisingly is only built for i586)
well, it is real mode x86 code, so it is probably not even 32bit, but 16bit code :-), but why the hell this needs glibc? It needs to fit into 432 bytes IIRC, so glibc is certainly not used by it... Smells like a packaging bug. Ok, i checked it. It is for "fixmbr", but I think this could easily be built as 64bit program. Or shell/perl script... -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/08/2013 07:49 PM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Am 08.12.2013 18:42, schrieb Jean Delvare:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:15:28 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
1-Requires more installation space due to need for various 32 bit libs
That's true, and I don't get it. On a freshly installed 13.1 x86_64 system, I have 63 32bit packages installed, for a total of over 41 MB. I see I need glibc-32bit for master-boot-code (which surprisingly is only built for i586)
well, it is real mode x86 code, so it is probably not even 32bit, but 16bit code :-), but why the hell this needs glibc? It needs to fit into 432 bytes IIRC, so glibc is certainly not used by it...
Smells like a packaging bug.
Ok, i checked it. It is for "fixmbr", but I think this could easily be built as 64bit program. Or shell/perl script...
And it's obsolete for EFI systems. Brilliant. Already filed a bug? If so, can you add me to Cc? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Am 09.12.2013 08:10, schrieb Hannes Reinecke:
Already filed a bug?
No, I have 32bit glibc installed anyway, so I don't really care ;-) -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Hannes, Stefan, Le Monday 09 December 2013 à 08:10 +0100, Hannes Reinecke a écrit :
On 12/08/2013 07:49 PM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Smells like a packaging bug.
Ok, i checked it. It is for "fixmbr", but I think this could easily be built as 64bit program. Or shell/perl script...
Yes, that's exactly the problem.
And it's obsolete for EFI systems. Brilliant.
Not sure what problem you are pointing at exactly?
Already filed a bug? If so, can you add me to Cc?
Steffen Winterfeld did almost 4 years ago: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573445 -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 Support -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Le Monday 09 December 2013 à 11:36 +0100, Jean Delvare a écrit :
Le Monday 09 December 2013 à 08:10 +0100, Hannes Reinecke a écrit :
Already filed a bug? If so, can you add me to Cc?
Steffen Winterfeld did almost 4 years ago: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573445
Actually Roman Fietze reported it, Steffen is the bug assignee. -- Jean "I can't read a bug report" Delvare -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:42:19PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:15:28 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
1-Requires more installation space due to need for various 32 bit libs
That's true, and I don't get it. On a freshly installed 13.1 x86_64 system, I have 63 32bit packages installed, for a total of over 41 MB. I see I need glibc-32bit for master-boot-code (which surprisingly is only built for i586), but the remaining ones I have no idea. If I ask zypper to remove them all but glibc-32bit, it says it would be happy to do so, so there are no dependencies.
So I am really curious why these are installed by default. What do I get from having systemd-32bit, samba-32bit, pam-32bit etc. installed on a 64-bit system?
The PAM configuration is agnostic to biarch, it actually is for both. Thats why all packags with PAM modules Recommend their -32bit equivalent. Otherwise you might find missing PAM snippets if there is ever a 32bit program trying to do PAM. Ciao, marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Marcus, Le Monday 09 December 2013 à 11:29 +0100, Marcus Meissner a écrit :
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:42:19PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
So I am really curious why these are installed by default. What do I get from having systemd-32bit, samba-32bit, pam-32bit etc. installed on a 64-bit system?
The PAM configuration is agnostic to biarch, it actually is for both.
Thats why all packags with PAM modules Recommend their -32bit equivalent.
Otherwise you might find missing PAM snippets if there is ever a 32bit program trying to do PAM.
But wouldn't that program be responsible for requiring pam-32bit then? Actually it seems to be the case, for example systemd-32bit does require pam-32bit. So this explains why pam-32bit is installed. What I really need to know is what systemd-32bit itself is good for. Nothing requires it, and the package description doesn't say anything about that sub-package specifically. Same for samba-32bit. -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 Support -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 12:01:32PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Marcus,
Le Monday 09 December 2013 à 11:29 +0100, Marcus Meissner a écrit :
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:42:19PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
So I am really curious why these are installed by default. What do I get from having systemd-32bit, samba-32bit, pam-32bit etc. installed on a 64-bit system?
The PAM configuration is agnostic to biarch, it actually is for both.
Thats why all packags with PAM modules Recommend their -32bit equivalent.
Otherwise you might find missing PAM snippets if there is ever a 32bit program trying to do PAM.
But wouldn't that program be responsible for requiring pam-32bit then? Actually it seems to be the case, for example systemd-32bit does require pam-32bit. So this explains why pam-32bit is installed.
What I really need to know is what systemd-32bit itself is good for. Nothing requires it, and the package description doesn't say anything about that sub-package specifically. Same for samba-32bit.
Well yes, but all the PAM modules are not required by main PAM package... So main PAM does not know about the systemd pam module, or about the opie pam module or the samba-winbinds pam module or the ecryptfs pam module. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 2013-12-05 12:28 (GMT+0100) Takashi Iwai composed:
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Fedora 17 Fedora 18 Fedora 19 Fedora 20 Release kernel 3.3.4 3.6.10 3.9.5 3.11.10 Updates latest 3.9.10 3.11.9 3.11.9 ------- Given kernel history for Fedora, I wonder about the apparent conservatism for update kernels for openSUSE. I've never been able to observe a problem using a kernel from Kernel:/stable/standard instead of an official kernel in any openSUSE release. What's the risk in moving up officially? -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 05 December 2013 08.58:28 Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-12-05 12:28 (GMT+0100) Takashi Iwai composed:
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Fedora 17 Fedora 18 Fedora 19 Fedora 20 Release kernel 3.3.4 3.6.10 3.9.5 3.11.10 Updates latest 3.9.10 3.11.9 3.11.9 -------
Given kernel history for Fedora, I wonder about the apparent conservatism for update kernels for openSUSE. I've never been able to observe a problem using a kernel from Kernel:/stable/standard instead of an official kernel in any openSUSE release. What's the risk in moving up officially?
Well there's always a risk, for example a working v.1x driver for a storage adapter suddendly bump to 2.x and doesn't work anymore, or need firwmware update etc ... (I face that one with still two kind of controler not being able to work since 3.2 kernel :-() I'm not against but we have to put it in longer queue, and/or ask for more testing kernel-stable to Be sure everybody knows. -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Le Thursday 05 December 2013 à 08:58 -0500, Felix Miata a écrit :
On 2013-12-05 12:28 (GMT+0100) Takashi Iwai composed:
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Fedora 17 Fedora 18 Fedora 19 Fedora 20 Release kernel 3.3.4 3.6.10 3.9.5 3.11.10 Updates latest 3.9.10 3.11.9 3.11.9 -------
Given kernel history for Fedora, I wonder about the apparent conservatism for update kernels for openSUSE. I've never been able to observe a problem using a kernel from Kernel:/stable/standard instead of an official kernel in any openSUSE release. What's the risk in moving up officially?
Despite Linus's hopes, the kernel interface changes over time. Old things get dropped, broken things get fixed with side effects. Plus every kernel comes with its load of regressions. At one time upstream was actually tracking them, see for example: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16055 That's about 150 regression in a single kernel version. The last available list is for kernel 3.7, but the last few lists only had a few bug numbers. I doubt the kernels have suddenly become regression-free, most likely nobody is tracking the regressions any longer, but I suppose the amount of regressions is about the same - one or two hundreds. Thankfully most bugs end up getting fixed. But this means that, if we really intend to switch to a more recent kernel tree, we better wait for the new kernel branch to have matured. So it may make sense to stick to 3.11 as long as Ubuntu maintains it (and we can help them with that) and jump to 3.12 later. Also keep in mind that some other packages depend on the kernel package. For example the nvidia binary driver. You may not like it (I don't...) but people are using it, and it is known that there is lag between every new kernel and its support by Nvidia. AFAIK 13.1 still doesn't have this driver available. Some users are probably waiting for availability before they switch to 13.1. When this happens, if the week after we change the kernel version and that breaks their graphics driver again, they will hate us. So, I am not objecting to changing the kernel version in flight, but I'm saying that great care should be taken if we decide to do it. All dependencies must be carefully taken into account, and the timing must be right too. -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 Support -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 06 December 2013 16.30:17 Jean Delvare wrote:
Also keep in mind that some other packages depend on the kernel package. For example the nvidia binary driver. You may not like it (I don't...) but people are using it, and it is known that there is lag between every new kernel and its support by Nvidia. AFAIK 13.1 still doesn't have this driver available. Some users are probably waiting for availability before they switch to 13.1. When this happens, if the week after we change the kernel version and that breaks their graphics driver again, they will hate us.
They already hate us, for not having them available. But on that specific subject the good news is the 331.20 nvidia is compatible with 3.12x kernel. The package prepared by sndhirsh build at least. and people have reported success of using this nvidia version under 3.12 kernel branch. -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/06/2013 05:30 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
On 2013-12-05 12:28 (GMT+0100) Takashi Iwai composed:
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y? Fedora 17 Fedora 18 Fedora 19 Fedora 20 Release kernel 3.3.4 3.6.10 3.9.5 3.11.10 Updates latest 3.9.10 3.11.9 3.11.9 -------
Given kernel history for Fedora, I wonder about the apparent conservatism for update kernels for openSUSE. I've never been able to observe a problem using a kernel from Kernel:/stable/standard instead of an official kernel in any openSUSE release. What's the risk in moving up officially? Despite Linus's hopes, the kernel interface changes over time. Old
Le Thursday 05 December 2013 à 08:58 -0500, Felix Miata a écrit : things get dropped, broken things get fixed with side effects. Plus every kernel comes with its load of regressions. At one time upstream was actually tracking them, see for example: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16055 That's about 150 regression in a single kernel version.
The last available list is for kernel 3.7, but the last few lists only had a few bug numbers. I doubt the kernels have suddenly become regression-free, most likely nobody is tracking the regressions any longer, but I suppose the amount of regressions is about the same - one or two hundreds.
Thankfully most bugs end up getting fixed. But this means that, if we really intend to switch to a more recent kernel tree, we better wait for the new kernel branch to have matured. So it may make sense to stick to 3.11 as long as Ubuntu maintains it (and we can help them with that) and jump to 3.12 later.
Also keep in mind that some other packages depend on the kernel package. For example the nvidia binary driver. You may not like it (I don't...) but people are using it, and it is known that there is lag between every new kernel and its support by Nvidia. AFAIK 13.1 still doesn't have this driver available. Some users are probably waiting for availability before they switch to 13.1. When this happens, if the week after we change the kernel version and that breaks their graphics driver again, they will hate us.
So, I am not objecting to changing the kernel version in flight, but I'm saying that great care should be taken if we decide to do it. All dependencies must be carefully taken into account, and the timing must be right too.
I Don't think that we should depend on ubuntu team , i think that we should move to kernel 3.12 when it be stable enough for our taste and not as long ubuntu maintain kernel 3.11. and what ever you decide (if it kernel 3.12) let test it and sooner the better -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 12:28:58PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
I'd recommend moving to 3.12.y for a number of reasons. I've been using it in tumbleweed:testing for a while now with no problems, if you want some expanded coverage at the moment, I'd be glad to move it to Tumbleweed "proper" today. Actually, I'll go do that anyway, can't hurt... thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/05/2013 04:17 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 12:28:58PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Hi,
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
I'd recommend moving to 3.12.y for a number of reasons.
One of those is that 3.12 will be a longterm (handled by me) if everything goes as planned... -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Hi all, Le Thursday 05 December 2013 à 12:28 +0100, Takashi Iwai a écrit :
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Reviving an old discussion... It's been 6 months, and as far as I can see no decision was made. We did not move to 3.12.y, but we also did not move to Ubuntu's 3.11.10.z extended stable branch. While I am a little disappointed by the return of 4-number versions, I still believe that using Ubuntu's work as a base for openSUSE 13.1 would improve the overall quality of our kernel. As an example, we had a bug report yesterday about a firewire bug which is already fixed in Ubuntu's 3.11.10.7 kernel, which was released 2 months ago. I don't really care if we stick to 3.11 or move to 3.12, but any solution based on an extended stable or longterm tree seems better to me than what we have right now. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:50:17AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi all,
Le Thursday 05 December 2013 à 12:28 +0100, Takashi Iwai a écrit :
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Reviving an old discussion... It's been 6 months, and as far as I can see no decision was made. We did not move to 3.12.y, but we also did not move to Ubuntu's 3.11.10.z extended stable branch. While I am a little disappointed by the return of 4-number versions, I still believe that using Ubuntu's work as a base for openSUSE 13.1 would improve the overall quality of our kernel.
As an example, we had a bug report yesterday about a firewire bug which is already fixed in Ubuntu's 3.11.10.7 kernel, which was released 2 months ago.
I don't really care if we stick to 3.11 or move to 3.12, but any solution based on an extended stable or longterm tree seems better to me than what we have right now.
I would recommend moving to 3.12, and take advantage of the work being done there on that stable tree. But as I'm not an opensuse maintainer, my vote doesn't really matter much :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 08:48:24AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:50:17AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi all,
Le Thursday 05 December 2013 à 12:28 +0100, Takashi Iwai a écrit :
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Reviving an old discussion... It's been 6 months, and as far as I can see no decision was made. We did not move to 3.12.y, but we also did not move to Ubuntu's 3.11.10.z extended stable branch. While I am a little disappointed by the return of 4-number versions, I still believe that using Ubuntu's work as a base for openSUSE 13.1 would improve the overall quality of our kernel.
As an example, we had a bug report yesterday about a firewire bug which is already fixed in Ubuntu's 3.11.10.7 kernel, which was released 2 months ago.
I don't really care if we stick to 3.11 or move to 3.12, but any solution based on an extended stable or longterm tree seems better to me than what we have right now.
I would recommend moving to 3.12, and take advantage of the work being done there on that stable tree. But as I'm not an opensuse maintainer, my vote doesn't really matter much :)
I have a laptop with a ValleyView graphic chipset and it has some problems with 3.11 kernel (is shows a ghost vga monitor attached, the display stays black after sleep, etc). Such problems are fixed in 3.12 so I have a good reason to ask for moving to 3.12. Giacomo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
At Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:38:28 -0400, Giacomo Comes wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 08:48:24AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:50:17AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi all,
Le Thursday 05 December 2013 à 12:28 +0100, Takashi Iwai a écrit :
Since 3.11.y maintenance was discontinued by Greg, Ubuntu took over it. It made me wonder: are we willing to continue 3.11.y for openSUSE 13.1 updates, just relying on Ubuntu? Or, can we just move on 3.12.y?
Reviving an old discussion... It's been 6 months, and as far as I can see no decision was made. We did not move to 3.12.y, but we also did not move to Ubuntu's 3.11.10.z extended stable branch. While I am a little disappointed by the return of 4-number versions, I still believe that using Ubuntu's work as a base for openSUSE 13.1 would improve the overall quality of our kernel.
As an example, we had a bug report yesterday about a firewire bug which is already fixed in Ubuntu's 3.11.10.7 kernel, which was released 2 months ago.
I don't really care if we stick to 3.11 or move to 3.12, but any solution based on an extended stable or longterm tree seems better to me than what we have right now.
I would recommend moving to 3.12, and take advantage of the work being done there on that stable tree. But as I'm not an opensuse maintainer, my vote doesn't really matter much :)
I have a laptop with a ValleyView graphic chipset and it has some problems with 3.11 kernel (is shows a ghost vga monitor attached, the display stays black after sleep, etc). Such problems are fixed in 3.12 so I have a good reason to ask for moving to 3.12.
IMO, moving to 3.12 is good for SUSE, too. It means more test coverage. The openSUSE kernel may take different kernel configs, but the kernel code base itself can be shared with SLE12. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/08/2014 11:55 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
IMO, moving to 3.12 is good for SUSE, too. It means more test coverage. The openSUSE kernel may take different kernel configs, but the kernel code base itself can be shared with SLE12.
Hi, I tend to agree (as a biased 3.12 maintainer and -stable "merger" to our repos). However this discussion is recurring and the switch was denied last time. The reasons are obvious, fear of regressions. But provided the stable-3.12 branch receives much more * fixes and * testing than the openSUSE branch, I now recommend the move to 3.12 too. This should be re-evaluated at the proper posts like openSUSE PRJ manager or whoever can decide now IMHO? thanks, -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Jiri Slaby wrote:
IMO, moving to 3.12 is good for SUSE, too. It means more test coverage. The openSUSE kernel may take different kernel configs, but the kernel code base itself can be shared with SLE12.
To me, this is a question that should be largely independent of what SUSE does around SUSE Linux Enterprise 12 (though I'll admit that can be another gentle nudge).
Hi, I tend to agree (as a biased 3.12 maintainer and -stable "merger" to our repos). However this discussion is recurring and the switch was denied last time. The reasons are obvious, fear of regressions. But provided the stable-3.12 branch receives much more * fixes and * testing than the openSUSE branch, I now recommend the move to 3.12 too.
From all I know, upstream is not keen to introduce regressions, or at least let them live for long.
And my regular test usage of Fedora over the years has shown that at least for everything I did that fear for regressions was pretty unfounded. My recommendation is to just go for it. (If we want to be on the cautious side, how about providing a preview of such an upgrade, asking a wider group of users to give it a try, and wait three weeks, say, before releasing that as a regular update?) Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.com> Sr. Director Product Management and Operations, SUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 06/12/2014 11:55 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Jiri Slaby wrote:
IMO, moving to 3.12 is good for SUSE, too. It means more test coverage. The openSUSE kernel may take different kernel configs, but the kernel code base itself can be shared with SLE12.
To me, this is a question that should be largely independent of what SUSE does around SUSE Linux Enterprise 12 (though I'll admit that can be another gentle nudge).
Hi, I tend to agree (as a biased 3.12 maintainer and -stable "merger" to our repos). However this discussion is recurring and the switch was denied last time. The reasons are obvious, fear of regressions. But provided the stable-3.12 branch receives much more * fixes and * testing than the openSUSE branch, I now recommend the move to 3.12 too.
From all I know, upstream is not keen to introduce regressions, or at least let them live for long.
And my regular test usage of Fedora over the years has shown that at least for everything I did that fear for regressions was pretty unfounded.
My recommendation is to just go for it.
Anyone wants to give it a try? http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/jirislaby:/os_13.1_3.12/stan... -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 2014-06-22 22:48 (GMT+0200) Jiri Slaby composed:
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/jirislaby:/os_13.1_3.12/stan...
After doing zypper up with kernel locked, I installed to 32 bit host gx270. On first attempt to reboot it took several minutes to get to SIGTERM SIGKILL Unmounting file systems. and took several more minutes to get to umounting the 4 nfs mounts, which took a _whole_ _lot_ more time to get through before plodding slowly through the virtual filesystems, and then starting to umount the same 4 nfs mounts, after which I pulled the plug. Selecting to boot the new kernel from the Grub menu just returns the Grub menu. At least the previous kernel still works. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
В Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:47:37 -0400 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> пишет:
On 2014-06-22 22:48 (GMT+0200) Jiri Slaby composed:
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/jirislaby:/os_13.1_3.12/stan...
After doing zypper up with kernel locked, I installed to 32 bit host gx270. On first attempt to reboot it took several minutes to get to
SIGTERM SIGKILL Unmounting file systems.
I'm afraid I do not understand - was it reboot after installation still running old kernel, to activate new one, or was it reboot after you booted with new kernel?
and took several more minutes to get to umounting the 4 nfs mounts, which took a _whole_ _lot_ more time to get through before plodding slowly through the virtual filesystems, and then starting to umount the same 4 nfs mounts, after which I pulled the plug. Selecting to boot the new kernel from the Grub menu just returns the Grub menu. At least the previous kernel still works. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 2014-06-23 09:36 (GMT+0400) Andrey Borzenkov composed:
Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:47:37 -0400 Felix Miata composedd:
After doing zypper up with kernel locked, I installed to 32 bit host gx270. On first attempt to reboot it took several minutes to get to
SIGTERM SIGKILL Unmounting file systems.
I'm afraid I do not understand - was it reboot after installation still running old kernel, to activate new one, or was it reboot after you booted with new kernel?
I didn't proofread well enough. After the zypper dup with kernel locked I unlocked kernel and repeated zypper dup to get Jiri's 3.12 installed.
and took several more minutes to get to umounting the 4 nfs mounts, which took a _whole_ _lot_ more time to get through before plodding slowly through the virtual filesystems, and then starting to umount the same 4 nfs mounts, after which I pulled the plug. Selecting to boot the new kernel from the Grub menu just returns the Grub menu. At least the previous kernel still works.
3.12 never loaded before I posted. All that sloth was trying to reboot from 3.11.10-7 to make a first try on Jiri's 3.12. Booting with 3.11 since trying to boot 3.12 allowed shutdown/reboot to proceed normally. My master Grubs only refer to vmlinuz/initrd, vmlinuz-prv/initrd-prv, vmlinuz-prv2/initrd-prv2, etc., so that installing new kernels requires no edits to the primarily used master Grubs. The create process for the 3.12 initrd broke. 3.12 now boots, runs KDE4 & Firefox 17 esr, and shuts down satisfactorily, so far at least. I need more sleep than I've been getting. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Jiri, On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, 22:48:03 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
[...] Anyone wants to give it a try?
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/jirislaby:/os_13.1_3.12/stan...
Apart from one issue with kernel-syms requiring kernel-xen-devel which doesn't exist, everything I tested works OK. Here's how I installed it: # zypper in --no-recommends kernel-default-devel-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 \ kernel-desktop-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 \ kernel-desktop-devel-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 \ kernel-devel-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 \ kernel-source-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 \ kernel-syms-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 Loading repository data... Reading installed packages... Resolving package dependencies... Problem: nothing provides kernel-xen-devel = 3.12.22-1.g3f06f02 needed by kernel-syms-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02.x86_64 Solution 1: do not install kernel-syms-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02.x86_64 Solution 2: break kernel-syms-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02.x86_64 by ignoring some of its dependencies Choose from above solutions by number or cancel [1/2/c] (c): 1 Resolving dependencies... Resolving package dependencies... The following 5 NEW packages are going to be installed: kernel-default-devel-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 kernel-desktop-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 kernel-desktop-devel-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 kernel-devel-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 kernel-source-3.12.22-1.1.g3f06f02 5 new packages to install. Overall download size: 128.1 MiB. After the operation, additional 668.0 MiB will be used. Continue? [y/n/? shows all options] (y): ... Some details about my system: CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz Chipset: Intel Z77 RAM: 32 GiB M/B: ASRock Z77 Pro4 Root-FS: ext4 on SDD Data-FS: ext4 on md-RAID10 on 4 Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 (ST2000DM001) This is what I've tested: KVM virtualization VMware virtualization NFSv4 server and client SMB server and client Desktop usage (XFCE) HTH, cheers. l8er manfred -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Anyone wants to give it a try?
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/jirislaby:/os_13.1_3.12/stan...
I'm putting my data where my mouth is. Runs fine so far, including suspend-to-disk, wireless (iwlwifi), 3G (cdc_ncm), graphics (i915), audio,... Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.com> Sr. Director Product Management and Operations, SUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
I fully support the version increase. I have had some users particularly with AMD systems that 3.11.x simply did not support. I had another broken system due to lack of support with 3.11.x then lack of support with Broadcom Tainted Crap closed source using the latest stable version of the Kernel. I had one customer so far that I had to recommend waiting until the next release until migrating which is frustrating. I use the latest stable version of the kernel 3.15.x on my systems but I purchase my hardware to work with it, Intel, Intel Graphics, Atheros Wireless etc to keep the closed source tainted crap off my systems so I do not have issues. This is what I recommend all people do. 3.12.x has been out for quite a while it is not exactly cutting edge, and has had a number of maintenance patches applied to it so I see no real issue in migrating openSUSE updates to it. I do not know any user that would be unhappy about this. I typically just add the OBS Kernel Stable repo to the system I install as well as the OBS Xorg/X11 repo as well on the systems that I can. I have not had a community user who was unhappy about this, unless they had hardware that required proprietary drivers that could not work with that version in which case they were relatively pissed they could not use the latest version and irritated with NVDIA/ATI/Broadcom etc. I also typically advise the people I do work for to replace hardware with hardware that has more open source kernel support for the best Linux experience. Being stuck with an old Kernel and old X11/Mesa is crap as far as I am concerned, It is like being stuck three versions behind with GNOME or KDE and being irritated every time you see someone with the latest version. All software has defects, regressions happen, keeping old software does not really help in any way as far as I am concerned. Most regressions are found and corrected quickly. Most users are happy when they get new features which generates the best form of positive marketing. openSUSE is not an Enterprise targeted distro, it is a community targeted distro sitting in the middle between Enterprise and bleeding edge, it would be nice to push it a little further toward bleeding edge and a little less toward enterprise and start regularly bumping core components up after they have been released for general consumption for 3-4 months. The more the software versions age the more users/developers we loose! I am all for only needing to do a full system upgrade about once a year but I still want relatively new software and regular updates. If I wanted old software with large amounts of new hardware headaches I would use SLED. Since SUSE is supposedly breaking away form direct developer SUSE paid employee support for openSUSE sadly we can also break away form openSUSE being testing platform for SLED/SLES some as well and do some version jumps. I do not know anyone that is really happy running 3.11.x when 3.15.x is out for general consumption. I am personally fine with bumping to 3.14.x which would make most users happy in my opinion, look how impatient most users are when it comes to the latest major/maintenance releases of KDE, most openSUSE users I talk to do not want to wait three weeks they want to jump right up and a number typically do as soon as a repo is available even if it is just a temporary one. Also most users I talk to are generally irritated by the lack of kernel bumps through regular updates then slightly appeased when they discover OBS Kernel Stable. If OBS did not exist I personally would not use openSUSE. It provides me with the software versions I want on a distro that I like using. Firefox and LibreOffice should be bumped as soon as a new public release is released. I hate having old versions of these products. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
If OBS did not exist I personally would not use openSUSE. It provides me with the software versions I want on a distro that I like using.
That's why it was invented and used by numerous people to get what they want.
Firefox and LibreOffice should be bumped as soon as a new public release is released. I hate having old versions of these products.
It seems you've never been hit by abrupt changes and major breakage that happen. Firefox & LibreOffice are perfect example of this kind of trouble. And believe me, if you have 100 person who depend on a previous feature that now is a bug. You don't want new version. About the kernel: I've bought one month ago a perfect laptop (Macbook pro) The thunderbold link with the external screen was working with 3.12,3.13.3.14 The day of my hollidays return 3.15 appear and then no more working screen & ethernet. Guess what 3.16-rc not at all either. I'm confident on the fact this will get fixed, but in the meantime "the update" broke my working system. You can't imagine how many different systems and way to use them there's outside. It's just not that simple as osc sr et voilà. Global question : Should we announce the fact to opensuse-ml & opensuse-project (+news, +meeting) to have feedback. (and yes managing the flow) Or we're enough confident to make the bump. -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member & Board GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot ~~~Don't take Life too serious. Nobody gets out alive anyway!~~~ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 08 of July 2014 16:18:07 timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com wrote:
3.12.x has been out for quite a while it is not exactly cutting edge, and has had a number of maintenance patches applied to it so I see no real issue in migrating openSUSE updates to it. I do not know any user that would be unhappy about this.
...
All software has defects, regressions happen, keeping old software does not really help in any way as far as I am concerned. Most regressions are found and corrected quickly. Most users are happy when they get new features which generates the best form of positive marketing.
From the maintainability point of view, it makes sense to move to kernel
No, they are not. For most users, it's more like in this strip: https://www.eviscerati.org/comics/comic/kp/2005/05/cold-hard-truth If the distribution doesn't work on some hardware from the start or if the user is missing some new feature, it makes sense for him/her to try newer version from OBS or try Tumbleweed or even Factory. Most users, however, have already installed and working systems and would be very annoyed if they just updated the system and it stopped working. And be sure that if we just throwed in a 3.14 or 3.15 kernel, this would happen and people would be very unhappy. When we moved from 2.6.37 to SLE-based 3.0 kernel in Evergreen 11.4 for very good reasons, there were people who complained because things stopped working for them (and not all of them because of missing NVidia/fglrx drivers). based either on Canonical's 3.11.10.z or on stable 3.12.y or on SLE12. All these have their pros and cons and I would welcome a discussion about which of these three would be the most suitable (taking Evergreen into account). But I don't see much advantage in moving to 3.14.y instead; while it would help some new installation, it would also unnecessarily heighten the risk of regressions and breaking existing systems.
openSUSE is not an Enterprise targeted distro, it is a community targeted distro sitting in the middle between Enterprise and bleeding edge, it would be nice to push it a little further toward bleeding edge and a little less toward enterprise and start regularly bumping core components up after they have been released for general consumption for 3-4 months.
The more the software versions age the more users/developers we loose! I am all for only needing to do a full system upgrade about once a year but I still want relatively new software and regular updates. If I wanted old software with large amounts of new hardware headaches I would use SLED.
Since SUSE is supposedly breaking away form direct developer SUSE paid employee support for openSUSE sadly we can also break away form openSUSE being testing platform for SLED/SLES some as well and do some version jumps.
I do not know anyone that is really happy running 3.11.x when 3.15.x is out for general consumption.
For example, I'm running few systems with OpenSuSE 13.1 and only on one of them I installed a newer kernel (because of driver for a sound card I'm experimenting with). As a result, suspend to disk seems completely broken. I see no point in upgrading a kernel on those that work, why should I? Where I want/need new kernel, I have sources to get it; but I'm glad noone is forcing it on me in a regular update. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com wrote:
3.12.x has been out for quite a while it is not exactly cutting edge, and has had a number of maintenance patches applied to it so I see no real issue in migrating openSUSE updates to it. I do not know any user that would be unhappy about this.
Seeing that Jiri's repo has not seen a source code updates since originally posted three months ago, I guess this is an abandoned experiment? Gerald -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On September 12, 2014 5:52:43 AM EDT, Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.com> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com wrote:
3.12.x has been out for quite a while it is not exactly cutting edge,
and has had a number of maintenance patches applied to it so I see no
real issue in migrating openSUSE updates to it. I do not know any user that would be unhappy about this.
Seeing that Jiri's repo has not seen a source code updates since originally posted three months ago, I guess this is an abandoned experiment?
Gerald
Fyi: There was discussion that Evergreen would leverage opensuse 13.1 switching to kernel 3.12, but at least for now the main evergreen Kernel maintainer is contemplating basing his effort on the SLES kernel. http://lists.rosenauer.org/pipermail/evergreen/2014-September/001421.html Greg -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:36:57AM -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On September 12, 2014 5:52:43 AM EDT, Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.com> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com wrote:
3.12.x has been out for quite a while it is not exactly cutting edge,
and has had a number of maintenance patches applied to it so I see no
real issue in migrating openSUSE updates to it. I do not know any user that would be unhappy about this.
Seeing that Jiri's repo has not seen a source code updates since originally posted three months ago, I guess this is an abandoned experiment?
Gerald
Fyi:
There was discussion that Evergreen would leverage opensuse 13.1 switching to kernel 3.12, but at least for now the main evergreen Kernel maintainer is contemplating basing his effort on the SLES kernel.
http://lists.rosenauer.org/pipermail/evergreen/2014-September/001421.html
... which is based on 3.12. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Gerald Pfeifer wrote on 2014-09-12 11:52 (GMT+0200):
Seeing that Jiri's repo has not seen a source code updates since originally posted three months ago, I guess this is an abandoned experiment?
I was using Jiri's 3.12 until Michal's 3.12 came along: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/mkubecek:/evergreen-13.1/ope... -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:50:17AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
I don't really care if we stick to 3.11 or move to 3.12, but any solution based on an extended stable or longterm tree seems better to me than what we have right now.
The plan is to adapt SLE12 kernel for Evergreen 13.1 as we did with SLE11-SP2 for Evergreen 11.4. I wanted to have it ready for testing earlier but then the config/ cleanup started so I decided to wait until things calm down, I suppose the right moment could be around RC1. I'm not sure, however, whether such kernel would be suitable for regular 13.1 updates. Even though I have the experiences from Evergreen 11.4, I'm afraid there will still be changes which some people may see as regressions. Now that there is a long term stable-3.12.y, there is also a third option: to base 13.1 kernel on stable-3.12.y (plus selected fixes). But I suppose it should be chosen only if the same is going to be used for the Evergreen phase as well. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
participants (27)
-
Alexander Graf -
Andrew Wafaa -
Andrey Borzenkov -
Bruno Friedmann -
Carlos E. R. -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Dave Howorth -
Felix Miata -
Gerald Pfeifer -
Giacomo Comes -
Greg Freemyer -
Greg KH -
Hannes Reinecke -
Jean Delvare -
Jeff Mahoney -
Jiri Kosina -
Jiri Slaby -
Larry Finger -
Manfred Hollstein -
Marcus Meissner -
Michal Kubecek -
nirsuse -
Stefan Seyfried -
Stephan Kulow -
Takashi Iwai -
timothy.m.butterworth＠gmail.com -
Wolfgang Rosenauer