FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Kernel Team

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-05-2010, 08:03 AM
Geir Ove Myhr
 
Default Mainline builds

The mainline builds of 2.6.34-rc2 and -rc3 have failed. Does anybody
know how to fix this?

Also, since around March 15 the mainline builds have a release name
associated to it (lucid and karmic). Could somebody explain the
significance of this or document it at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/MainlineBuilds ?

And while mentioning the wiki page, it would be nice if it could
explain in more detail what "Ubuntu kernel configuration files" means.
My experience is that copying e.g.
/boot/config-2.6.34-020634rc1-generic does not reproduce a mainline
build if I build it myself (e.g. I will have to turn kernel debugging
off in order to produce kernel-image*.deb < 30 MB instead of > 200
MB). The wiki page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild
suggests one needs to use the --overlay-dir option to make-kpkg with a
current ubuntu-git tree.

Finally, I'm currently not able to build 2.6.34-rcX using the
instructions at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild, but
I suppose that is related to the failing mainline builds, so leave
that out for now.

I understand you guys are busy preparing for the Lucid release, but
the missing mainline builds and difficult compile instructions make
triaging and upstreaming Ubuntu bugs and testing patches from upstream
much harder. For example, drm/i915 developers need more testing of the
patch at http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27187#c64 (LP:
541511) and I would have liked to prepare an Ubuntu package with that
so that some of the Ubuntu users who have reported this problem could
provide their test results without figuring out how to patch and build
a kernel.

Geir Ove

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 04-05-2010, 10:51 AM
sniper
 
Default Mainline builds

2010/4/5 Geir Ove Myhr <gomyhr@gmail.com>:
> The mainline builds of 2.6.34-rc2 and -rc3 have failed. Does anybody
> know how to fix this?
>

Hi, all guys. I am a new subscriber to this mailing list.

I just successfully build the 2.6.34-rc3 pulled from linus git last
night. You should try the lastest source again.

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 04-06-2010, 09:20 AM
Andy Whitcroft
 
Default Mainline builds

On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:03:33AM +0200, Geir Ove Myhr wrote:
> The mainline builds of 2.6.34-rc2 and -rc3 have failed. Does anybody
> know how to fix this?

Hrm, brokeness due to the new configuration checks. I will get that
fixed up.

> Also, since around March 15 the mainline builds have a release name
> associated to it (lucid and karmic). Could somebody explain the
> significance of this or document it at
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/MainlineBuilds ?

These indicate which Ubuntu series the builds were made in, essentially
from which series the configuration was taken. Previously the
configurations were very similar and there was little difference which
release they were built and no need to differentiate them. However,
from Karmic to Lucid we have a number of very specifici configuration
requirements such as DEVTMPFS which mean that a kernel built with a
Karmic based configuration and the same kernel built with a Lucid based
configuration are considerably different. Therefore it is sensible to
expose the build series in the built directory names. This will also
allow us to build in multiple series where that is appropriate.

> And while mentioning the wiki page, it would be nice if it could
> explain in more detail what "Ubuntu kernel configuration files" means.
> My experience is that copying e.g.
> /boot/config-2.6.34-020634rc1-generic does not reproduce a mainline
> build if I build it myself (e.g. I will have to turn kernel debugging
> off in order to produce kernel-image*.deb < 30 MB instead of > 200
> MB). The wiki page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild
> suggests one needs to use the --overlay-dir option to make-kpkg with a
> current ubuntu-git tree.

All Ubuntu builds are built with debugging turned on, and that then
stripped at packaging time. This allows one build to produce .ddeb and
.deb packages and saving time.

> Finally, I'm currently not able to build 2.6.34-rcX using the
> instructions at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild, but
> I suppose that is related to the failing mainline builds, so leave
> that out for now.
>
> I understand you guys are busy preparing for the Lucid release, but
> the missing mainline builds and difficult compile instructions make
> triaging and upstreaming Ubuntu bugs and testing patches from upstream
> much harder. For example, drm/i915 developers need more testing of the
> patch at http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27187#c64 (LP:
> 541511) and I would have liked to prepare an Ubuntu package with that
> so that some of the Ubuntu users who have reported this problem could
> provide their test results without figuring out how to patch and build
> a kernel.

Entirely why we spend time producing these builds. I hope to have these
fixed and building again correctly today.

-apw

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 04-06-2010, 09:46 AM
Geir Ove Myhr
 
Default Mainline builds

Thank you for the explanation. I have a few follow-up questions inline.

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
>> Also, since around March 15 the mainline builds have a release name
>> associated to it (lucid and karmic). Could somebody explain the
>> significance of this or document it at
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/MainlineBuilds ?
>
> These indicate which Ubuntu series the builds were made in, essentially
> from which series the configuration was taken. *Previously the
> configurations were very similar and there was little difference which
> release they were built and no need to differentiate them. *However,
> from Karmic to Lucid we have a number of very specifici configuration
> requirements such as DEVTMPFS which mean that a kernel built with a
> Karmic based configuration and the same kernel built with a Lucid based
> configuration are considerably different. *Therefore it is sensible to
> expose the build series in the built directory names. *This will also
> allow us to build in multiple series where that is appropriate.

What is the practical implications of which series the configuration
is taken from? I see that the most recent 2.6.34-rcX, drm-next, and
drm-intel-next all use Karmic configuration. Would it be fine to ask a
bug reporter on Lucid to test one of those mainline kernels?

>> And while mentioning the wiki page, it would be nice if it could
>> explain in more detail what "Ubuntu kernel configuration files" means.
>> My experience is that copying e.g.
>> /boot/config-2.6.34-020634rc1-generic does not reproduce a mainline
>> build if I build it myself (e.g. I will have to turn kernel debugging
>> off in order to produce kernel-image*.deb < 30 MB instead of > 200
>> MB). The wiki page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild
>> suggests one needs to use the --overlay-dir option to make-kpkg with a
>> current ubuntu-git tree.
>
> All Ubuntu builds are built with debugging turned on, and that then
> stripped at packaging time. *This allows one build to produce .ddeb and
> .deb packages and saving time.

Okay. So is the following close to an accurate description?
* Mainline kernels: Ubuntu specific configuration (.config) + Ubuntu
specific packaging (taken from/usr/share/kernel-package unless
specified by --overlay-dir) + unmodified kernel source
* Stock ubuntu kernels: Ubuntu specific configuration + Ubuntu
specific packaging + kernel source from Ubuntu git tree

>> I understand you guys are busy preparing for the Lucid release, but
>> the missing mainline builds and difficult compile instructions make
>> triaging and upstreaming Ubuntu bugs and testing patches from upstream
>> much harder. For example, drm/i915 developers need more testing of the
>> patch at http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27187#c64 (LP:
>> 541511) and I would have liked to prepare an Ubuntu package with that
>> so that some of the Ubuntu users who have reported this problem could
>> provide their test results without figuring out how to patch and build
>> a kernel.
>
> Entirely why we spend time producing these builds. *I hope to have these
> fixed and building again correctly today.

Thank you! I will try again to build a kernel-package with 2.6.34-rc3
+ patch once I have some spare time.

Geir Ove

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 04-06-2010, 12:02 PM
Andy Whitcroft
 
Default Mainline builds

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 11:46:18AM +0200, Geir Ove Myhr wrote:
> Thank you for the explanation. I have a few follow-up questions inline.
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
> >> Also, since around March 15 the mainline builds have a release name
> >> associated to it (lucid and karmic). Could somebody explain the
> >> significance of this or document it at
> >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/MainlineBuilds ?
> >
> > These indicate which Ubuntu series the builds were made in, essentially
> > from which series the configuration was taken. *Previously the
> > configurations were very similar and there was little difference which
> > release they were built and no need to differentiate them. *However,
> > from Karmic to Lucid we have a number of very specifici configuration
> > requirements such as DEVTMPFS which mean that a kernel built with a
> > Karmic based configuration and the same kernel built with a Lucid based
> > configuration are considerably different. *Therefore it is sensible to
> > expose the build series in the built directory names. *This will also
> > allow us to build in multiple series where that is appropriate.
>
> What is the practical implications of which series the configuration
> is taken from? I see that the most recent 2.6.34-rcX, drm-next, and
> drm-intel-next all use Karmic configuration. Would it be fine to ask a
> bug reporter on Lucid to test one of those mainline kernels?

The greater the configuration skew the higher the likelyhood of a kernel
not being compatible with the userspace components. While we expect
that a newer kernel to work on older userspace (on the previous series)
we do not test it there, and do not expect older kernels to work on
newer series (though they may).

The main time we have an issue is during the middle of a development
release particularly where the release is an LTS where we want to test
the same mainline kernels on different releases.

> >> And while mentioning the wiki page, it would be nice if it could
> >> explain in more detail what "Ubuntu kernel configuration files" means.
> >> My experience is that copying e.g.
> >> /boot/config-2.6.34-020634rc1-generic does not reproduce a mainline
> >> build if I build it myself (e.g. I will have to turn kernel debugging
> >> off in order to produce kernel-image*.deb < 30 MB instead of > 200
> >> MB). The wiki page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild
> >> suggests one needs to use the --overlay-dir option to make-kpkg with a
> >> current ubuntu-git tree.
> >
> > All Ubuntu builds are built with debugging turned on, and that then
> > stripped at packaging time. *This allows one build to produce .ddeb and
> > .deb packages and saving time.
>
> Okay. So is the following close to an accurate description?
> * Mainline kernels: Ubuntu specific configuration (.config) + Ubuntu
> specific packaging (taken from/usr/share/kernel-package unless
> specified by --overlay-dir) + unmodified kernel source
> * Stock ubuntu kernels: Ubuntu specific configuration + Ubuntu
> specific packaging + kernel source from Ubuntu git tree

Both are built using the Ubuntu specific configuration and packaging taken
from the series in which they are built, taken directly from the tip of
the git tree for that series. In the case of the mainline releases the
Ubuntu source tree is then substituted for an unmodified upstream version
at the specified tag.

> >> I understand you guys are busy preparing for the Lucid release, but
> >> the missing mainline builds and difficult compile instructions make
> >> triaging and upstreaming Ubuntu bugs and testing patches from upstream
> >> much harder. For example, drm/i915 developers need more testing of the
> >> patch at http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27187#c64 (LP:
> >> 541511) and I would have liked to prepare an Ubuntu package with that
> >> so that some of the Ubuntu users who have reported this problem could
> >> provide their test results without figuring out how to patch and build
> >> a kernel.
> >
> > Entirely why we spend time producing these builds. *I hope to have these
> > fixed and building again correctly today.
>
> Thank you! I will try again to build a kernel-package with 2.6.34-rc3
> + patch once I have some spare time.

That one is building at the moment and should pop out shortly, it will
be the first built 'in' lucid.

-apw

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 04-09-2010, 09:41 AM
Geir Ove Myhr
 
Default Mainline builds

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 11:46:18AM +0200, Geir Ove Myhr wrote:
>> Thank you! I will try again to build a kernel-package with 2.6.34-rc3
>> + patch once I have some spare time.
> That one is building at the moment and should pop out shortly, it will
> be the first built 'in' lucid.

It is out now at
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.34-rc3-lucid/ , but
unlike -rc2 it doesn't contain the linux*_all.deb packages and
CHANGES. There was also no email to kernel-team like it was for -rc2.
Is this a problem, or was it on purpose?

Geir Ove

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 04-22-2010, 08:11 AM
Andy Whitcroft
 
Default Mainline builds

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:41:11AM +0200, Geir Ove Myhr wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 11:46:18AM +0200, Geir Ove Myhr wrote:
> >> Thank you! I will try again to build a kernel-package with 2.6.34-rc3
> >> + patch once I have some spare time.
> > That one is building at the moment and should pop out shortly, it will
> > be the first built 'in' lucid.
>
> It is out now at
> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.34-rc3-lucid/ , but
> unlike -rc2 it doesn't contain the linux*_all.deb packages and
> CHANGES. There was also no email to kernel-team like it was for -rc2.
> Is this a problem, or was it on purpose?

The lack of an email was due to the manner in which I triggered it. The
lack of the headers was a bug and should now be resolved.

-apw

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-04-2010, 04:58 AM
Kees Cook
 
Default mainline builds

Hi!

It seems the -maverick mainline builds are being built in a Hardy chroot?
They're reporting GCC: (GNU) 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7) which isn't even
an up to date Hardy system (the gcc in -security is 4.2.4)!

Can this be fixed to build in a maverick chroot instead so locally built
modules can be loaded?

Came to my attention via this:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/11252/how-do-i-get-nvidia-drivers-to-work-with-mainline-ppa-kernels/

Thanks,

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-04-2010, 02:24 PM
Andy Whitcroft
 
Default mainline builds

On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:58:21PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It seems the -maverick mainline builds are being built in a Hardy chroot?
> They're reporting GCC: (GNU) 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7) which isn't even
> an up to date Hardy system (the gcc in -security is 4.2.4)!
>
> Can this be fixed to build in a maverick chroot instead so locally built
> modules can be loaded?
>
> Came to my attention via this:
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/11252/how-do-i-get-nvidia-drivers-to-work-with-mainline-ppa-kernels/

Yeah currently we only have hardy chroots on the machine they are built
on currently; though I had assumed they were being updated at least. I
assume it would make more sense to have them built in the appropriate
chroots. I guess we'll investigate whether we can get those built or we
would need to move the builds.

-apw

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:06 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org