Hi Don! Do you still have this "git merge
redhat-infra" idea you mentioned a few weeks ago on your radar? Now
that Fedora starts to use kernel-ark for stable kernels as well it would
be really nice to have something like that that at hand... At least for
me. ;-) CU, knurd
On 25.11.20 18:27, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am 25.11.20 um 15:43 schrieb Don Zickus:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 06:10:21AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Am 24.11.20 um 23:22 schrieb GitLab Bridge on behalf of dzickusrh:
>>>> From: Don Zickus <dzickus(a)redhat.com>
>>>> The workflow has recently changed such that all development is done
>>>> on the 'os-build' branch. Update the docs to show how easy it
>>>> to make a change, commit it, generate the srpm and upload it to koji.
>>> While you are dealing with this a quick question: What's the best way
>>> to use
>>> the ark tree to build a vanilla kernel these days?
>> My plan at the time was to auto-create another branch say 'redhat-infra'
> How about "build-infra" or "rh-build-infra"? (for the record: I
> those redhat and rh terms in ark slightly annoying, because it's sending
> the wrong message to community contributes, but well, one more "rh" or
> less now doesn't matter anymore...)
>> (bad name I know) that stripped Red Hat patches out of os-build
>> leaving just
>> the redhat/ directory on top of upstream 'linus' branch.
>> Then you could take any upstream branch and just 'git merge
>> redhat-infra' to
>> quickly add in the RH infrastructure pieces. And that would address your
>> concern, I believe.
> Yes, that should work for me.
>> However, that did slip off my radar and I never finished writing that
>> to generate that branch.
> Happens, no worries, I might have made more noise earlier if I actually
> had been using ark as base for my vanilla builds ;-)
>> But assuming I did finish that script, would the spirit of that approach
>> work for you? (aside from a better name [suggestions welcome])
> Afaics yes(¹). And of course I'm willing to test and fine-tune this.
> Ciao, Thorsten
> (¹) while at please let me state a remotely related general wish, maybe
> it's something that might be useful for others as well: for my use case
> it would be ideal if redhat/configs/fedora/ in ark would also contain
> which config settings ideally need to be set differently when building a
> kernel for an older release. Right now one of the few differences (apart
> from new config options) between rawhide and F32 for example is
> CONFIG_FB_MODE_HELPERS: in rawhide it's not set, in F32 it's enabled.
> Having this information directly in ark as a override (maybe in
> redhat/configs/fedora/32/, redhat/configs/fedora/overrides/f32/, or
> something like that) would be useful for me; and I guess it would be
> useful for the Fedora's kernel maintainers as well, in case they start
> building kernels for released Fedora version from ark sooner or later as
> well (which I assume is the long term plan – or not?).