Hi folks-

Proposed wiki page edits...

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BuildYourOwnKernel recommends the
sequence:

fakeroot debian/rules clean
fakeroot debian/rules binary-generic

Now, I *always* also build 'binary-headers' since it is quick and often
necessary (right?). Is there any reason why we shouldn't change that
wiki to recommend building 'binary-headers' also?:

fakeroot debian/rules clean
fakeroot debian/rules binary-headers binary-generic

I also propose making the Testing section explicitly state that you
should always install all three resulting .debs together:

dpkg -i
linux-headers-2.6.38-6_2.6.38-6.34_all.deb
linux-headers-2.6.38-6-generic_2.6.38-6.34_amd64.deb
linux-image-2.6.38-6-generic_2.6.38-6.34_amd64.deb

Opinions?

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

On 03/19/2011 05:28 PM, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> Hi folks-
>
> Proposed wiki page edits...
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BuildYourOwnKernel recommends the
> sequence:
>
> fakeroot debian/rules clean
> fakeroot debian/rules binary-generic
>
> Now, I *always* also build 'binary-headers' since it is quick and often
> necessary (right?). Is there any reason why we shouldn't change that
> wiki to recommend building 'binary-headers' also?:
>
> fakeroot debian/rules clean
> fakeroot debian/rules binary-headers binary-generic
>

Generally you only need any headers package when there is an abi bump. But for
simplicity I don't see any reason to describe building the headers package as
well. I must admit, that I never tried multiple targets in one run, but I guess
you have and it works.

So I would be ok with both changes. It might be overkill in some cases but at
least it is one recipe that works in all cases.

-Stefan
> I also propose making the Testing section explicitly state that you
> should always install all three resulting .debs together:
>
> dpkg -i
> linux-headers-2.6.38-6_2.6.38-6.34_all.deb
> linux-headers-2.6.38-6-generic_2.6.38-6.34_amd64.deb
> linux-image-2.6.38-6-generic_2.6.38-6.34_amd64.deb
>
> Opinions?
>
> -Kamal
>


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

Thanks Stefan.

On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 11:21 +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> Generally you only need any headers package when there is an abi bump.

I think that might be much more common scenario than we generally take
into account...

For most "regular people" who aren't building and installing new kernels
every day like we do, the very first time they try to build their own
kernel they're pretty likely to be running a different ABI than the one
their building. No?

> But for
> simplicity I don't see any reason to describe building the headers package as
> well.

I think you meant to say "I don't see any reason NOT to describe..."

> I must admit, that I never tried multiple targets in one run, but I guess
> you have and it works.

Yup, debian/rules just a makefile -- multiple targets works fine. Even
something like this works:

fakeroot debian/rules clean binary-headers binary-generic
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

On 03/21/2011 06:36 PM, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> Thanks Stefan.
>
> On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 11:21 +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> Generally you only need any headers package when there is an abi bump.
>
> I think that might be much more common scenario than we generally take
> into account...
>
> For most "regular people" who aren't building and installing new kernels
> every day like we do, the very first time they try to build their own
> kernel they're pretty likely to be running a different ABI than the one
> their building. No?
>
>> But for
>> simplicity I don't see any reason to describe building the headers package as
>> well.
>
> I think you meant to say "I don't see any reason NOT to describe..."
>
Indeed I did. Word lost between brain and keyboard...

>> I must admit, that I never tried multiple targets in one run, but I guess
>> you have and it works.
>
> Yup, debian/rules just a makefile -- multiple targets works fine. Even
> something like this works:
>
> fakeroot debian/rules clean binary-headers binary-generic
> ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> -Kamal


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

On 03/19/2011 09:28 AM, Kamal Mostafa wrote:

Hi folks-

Proposed wiki page edits...

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BuildYourOwnKernel recommends the
sequence:

fakeroot debian/rules clean
fakeroot debian/rules binary-generic

Now, I *always* also build 'binary-headers' since it is quick and often
necessary (right?). Is there any reason why we shouldn't change that
wiki to recommend building 'binary-headers' also?:

fakeroot debian/rules clean
fakeroot debian/rules binary-headers binary-generic

I also propose making the Testing section explicitly state that you
should always install all three resulting .debs together:

dpkg -i
linux-headers-2.6.38-6_2.6.38-6.34_all.deb
linux-headers-2.6.38-6-generic_2.6.38-6.34_amd64.deb
linux-image-2.6.38-6-generic_2.6.38-6.34_amd64.deb

Opinions?

-Kamal



I think those are good changes to make.

--
Brad Figg brad.figg@canonical.com http://www.canonical.com

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

On 2011-03-21 18:36, Kamal Mostafa wrote:

Thanks Stefan.

On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 11:21 +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:

Generally you only need any headers package when there is an abi bump.


I think that might be much more common scenario than we generally take
into account...

For most "regular people" who aren't building and installing new kernels
every day like we do, the very first time they try to build their own
kernel they're pretty likely to be running a different ABI than the one
their building. No?


Another interesting side effect is that *if* you install the headers,
DKMS will work for your new kernel. That could both be what you want (e
g to make virtualbox etc work) but also what you don't want (if you want
a clean test).





But for
simplicity I don't see any reason to describe building the headers package as
well.


I think you meant to say "I don't see any reason NOT to describe..."


I must admit, that I never tried multiple targets in one run, but I guess
you have and it works.


Yup, debian/rules just a makefile -- multiple targets works fine. Even
something like this works:

fakeroot debian/rules clean binary-headers binary-generic
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Hmm, this seems dangerous to me, at least in combination with the "-j"
switch. Isn't there a possibility that clean will run in parallel with
the binary targets, or should this prevented inside the makefiles somehow?


Combining "binary-headers" with "binary-generic" seems safe to me though.

--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
http://launchpad.net/~diwic

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

On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 22:50 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
> > Yup, debian/rules just a makefile -- multiple targets works fine. Even
> > something like this works:
> >
> > fakeroot debian/rules clean binary-headers binary-generic
> > ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not actually recommending combining clean with the other targets
(since what's the point? and it seems weird to do) -- just pointing out
that normal Makefile rules apply here.

> Hmm, this seems dangerous to me, at least in combination with the "-j"
> switch. Isn't there a possibility that clean will run in parallel with
> the binary targets, or should this prevented inside the makefiles somehow?

I don't think anything in the debian/rules file(s) protect against it,
so you're probably right that this would be unsafe to use with -j.

FWIW, I never use -j with the kernel build... The build parallelizes
itself very nicely without my help, due to some internal magic that I
haven't looked into very deeply.

-Kamal

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

On 03/21/2011 06:07 PM, Kamal Mostafa wrote:

On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 22:50 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:

Yup, debian/rules just a makefile -- multiple targets works fine. Even
something like this works:

fakeroot debian/rules clean binary-headers binary-generic
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I'm not actually recommending combining clean with the other targets
(since what's the point? and it seems weird to do) -- just pointing out
that normal Makefile rules apply here.


Hmm, this seems dangerous to me, at least in combination with the "-j"
switch. Isn't there a possibility that clean will run in parallel with
the binary targets, or should this prevented inside the makefiles somehow?


I don't think anything in the debian/rules file(s) protect against it,
so you're probably right that this would be unsafe to use with -j.

FWIW, I never use -j with the kernel build... The build parallelizes
itself very nicely without my help, due to some internal magic that I
haven't looked into very deeply.

-Kamal




I noticed that the wiki describes how to append a version or unique name
to a custom kernel when using fakeroot make-kpkg(fakeroot make-kpkg
--initrd --append-to-version=-some-string-here).


However, I don't see any information that explains how to do this with
fakeroot debian/rules. Should there be a section added to explain how
to do this?


Thanks,

Joe

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

On 03/22/2011 04:52 PM, Joseph Salisbury wrote:

On 03/21/2011 06:07 PM, Kamal Mostafa wrote:

On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 22:50 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:

Yup, debian/rules just a makefile -- multiple targets works fine. Even
something like this works:

fakeroot debian/rules clean binary-headers binary-generic
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I'm not actually recommending combining clean with the other targets
(since what's the point? and it seems weird to do) -- just pointing out
that normal Makefile rules apply here.


Hmm, this seems dangerous to me, at least in combination with the "-j"
switch. Isn't there a possibility that clean will run in parallel with
the binary targets, or should this prevented inside the makefiles
somehow?


I don't think anything in the debian/rules file(s) protect against it,
so you're probably right that this would be unsafe to use with -j.

FWIW, I never use -j with the kernel build... The build parallelizes
itself very nicely without my help, due to some internal magic that I
haven't looked into very deeply.

-Kamal




I noticed that the wiki describes how to append a version or unique name
to a custom kernel when using fakeroot make-kpkg(fakeroot make-kpkg
--initrd --append-to-version=-some-string-here).

However, I don't see any information that explains how to do this with
fakeroot debian/rules. Should there be a section added to explain how to
do this?

Thanks,

Joe



make-kpkg is an external package, and as such, is not supported by the
Ubuntu kernel team (though we don't specifically preclude its use). If
you want a custom kernel with a unique version, then edit the changelog
before rebuilding. debian/rules does not support a version option.


rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

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