On 12/05/2017 12:50 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 02:03 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> Like all good bits of software, the kernel.spec has grown over time.
>> Part of this growth has come from building more of the userspace
>> tools that live under the tools directory of the kernel. I've been
>> experimenting with moving these to a separate spec file.
>>
>> Advantages:
>> - Less stuff in the kernel.spec file (~300 line deletion)
>> - Fewer build deps for things like perf
>> - People building the kernel only get the kernel
>> - Issues with userspace tools don't impact the kernel
>> - Can likely drop most of the debuginfo regex nightmare for the userspace
packages
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>> - Would need to manually keep in sync on some cadence. This is mostly
>> an issue for rawhide. Could we actually get away with only re-building
>> on each new kernel version or do we need to resync on each -rc?
>> - Would probably need to rework how tools are tied to kernel versions at
>> the package level
>> - Others added here
>>
>> I've experimented with something at
https://pagure.io/kernel-tools-pkggit
>> which is mostly a copy/paste of parts of the kernel.spec file. I'm
>> mostly looking for general feedback about if this a good idea but
>> I'm also interested in specific feedback if you have it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Laura
>
> Giving this some thought, this is still a proposal I want to push forward.
> The biggest feedback I heard about this was
>
> - Synchronization
> - Applying patches across the tree
>
> For the synchronization issue, Don Zickus pointed out that we can
> use Requires as needed. We have this already on some of the kernel
> packages and can add others as needed. It's also very easy to
> ask users to update to a newer package if something gets out of
> sync.
>
> I don't have a great solution for cases where patches are applied
> across the tree and touch both the kernel and userspace tools.
> Such patches are bad style IMHO since the userspace tools are
> supposed to be userspace programs. For Fedora's usage, such
> patches would probably exist separately for such a short period
> of time that I don't think it would be difficult to manage.
> Fedora gets very few patches for the tools anyway.
>
> Someone also mentioned the hyperv-daemons existing as a separate
> spec file. I'd be okay with moving that into kernel-tools for
> easier management as well.
>
> I'll post the link to the bugzilla package review when that
> happens.
>
> Thanks,
> Laura
Review is at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523909
Thanks,
Laura