You are not logged in.

#1 2005-05-31 15:22:17

kleptophobiac
Member
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Registered: 2004-04-25
Posts: 481

Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

Most modules require the kernel sources in order to compile, and I thought it would be nice to have the kernel sources used for the stock kernels available as a package. I know it's possible to use the abs or to download the kernel from kernel.org, but then you must go through the hassle of compiling the same kernel.

This isn't a big deal, just a nice kernel thing to have. tongue

Any thoughts?

Offline

#2 2005-05-31 15:41:58

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

ummm the kernel package supplies everything needed t compile external modules.... do a pacman -Ql kernel26

Offline

#3 2005-06-01 05:15:17

kleptophobiac
Member
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Registered: 2004-04-25
Posts: 481

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

I was unable to compile madwifi drivers or ivtv drivers without real kernel sources. Stuff like lirc seems to work with just what the arch package provides.

Offline

#4 2005-06-01 05:52:25

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/madwi … i/PKGBUILD

for madwifi you need to specify the path

ivtv may be the same way

Offline

#5 2005-06-01 19:12:23

kleptophobiac
Member
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Registered: 2004-04-25
Posts: 481

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

with ivtv, the file just doesn't exist in the kernel package distribution, and I haven't looked at madwifi in a long time. tongue

Offline

#6 2005-06-01 19:37:02

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ivtv/ivtv/PKGBUILD

there's ivtv... see if that one works

edit whoops, that's yours....  :oops:  :oops:

Offline

#7 2005-06-02 01:57:56

kleptophobiac
Member
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Registered: 2004-04-25
Posts: 481

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

wink

I know that it needs media/id.h from the kernel distro. Teehee.

Offline

#8 2005-06-02 09:46:51

jerem
Member
From: France
Registered: 2005-01-15
Posts: 310

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

Pacman -S kernel-source

is not better than

elinks www.kernel.org

Offline

#9 2005-06-02 14:18:44

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

jerem wrote:
Pacman -S kernel-source

is not better than

elinks www.kernel.org

Arch doesnt have a kernel-source package, a basic and usually enough, of a source tree is distributed with the kernel.

[root@server iphitus]# pacman -S kernel-source
kernel-source: not found in sync db

[root@server iphitus]# pacman -S kernel26-source
kernel26-source: not found in sync db

Offline

#10 2005-06-02 15:05:23

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

I think what he's saying is *if* there was a source package, there isn't much of a point

anyway, klept - the kernel package *should* provide all headers needed to compile extra modules - if some are missing, then post a bug in the bug tracker - it should be added

Offline

#11 2005-06-04 19:22:25

bardo
Member
From: Milano, Italia
Registered: 2004-12-06
Posts: 90
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

Well, I have to say I like the Debian Way© of having separate headers and source packages.

Sometimes it is a problem if you want to have the latest kernel, and this happens quite often since the new kernel naming procedure. A kernel source always up to date should be available for people who like to build his own kernel, while the headers are necessary only if you use a prepackaged kernel, but need to build something like a module.

When I have to compile something I never know if I'll mess with something since I have the latest kernel source and some older headers... smile


dreaming in digital / living in realtime / thinking in binary / talking in ip / welcome to our world...

Offline

#12 2005-06-04 20:30:46

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

bardo:
that doesn't make a whole lot of sense... in The Arch Way© you should be using makepkg to build your stuff, if you build your own kernel, and use the provided kernel PKGBUILD, the headers are copied in there... then you no longer have old headers

Offline

#13 2005-06-05 00:58:25

bardo
Member
From: Milano, Italia
Registered: 2004-12-06
Posts: 90
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

phrakture wrote:

bardo:
that doesn't make a whole lot of sense... in The Arch Way© you should be using makepkg to build your stuff, if you build your own kernel, and use the provided kernel PKGBUILD, the headers are copied in there... then you no longer have old headers

Well, I don't use the provided PKGBUILD. The latest stable kernel is 2.6.11.11, our latest build is 2.6.11.10, at least in current. The last number increases as trivial fixes are inserted in the kernel tree, so they're not prone to vulnerabilities as other packages are. IMHO these shouldn't be treated as new releases, but as fixes, which is exactly what they are. Just like when someone releases a new build of a package. That's why the lesser minor was created, and why I think it should arrive faster than other packages in the stable repo.

This way I could get and compile my own source without discrepancies from the headers package, often needed by other packages. Otherwise, I should have a "stable" headers package and the latest full kernel sources providing kernel26. The source is not unstable by itself. It is what I do of it that makes it a risk. But this happens with many softwares, doesn't it?

Another reason because I don't use that PKGBUILD is because abs doesn't work on my machine, but that's totally OT here big_smile


dreaming in digital / living in realtime / thinking in binary / talking in ip / welcome to our world...

Offline

#14 2005-06-05 01:42:52

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

bardo wrote:

Well, I don't use the provided PKGBUILD. The latest stable kernel is 2.6.11.11, our latest build is 2.6.11.10, at least in current. The last number increases as trivial fixes are inserted in the kernel tree, so they're not prone to vulnerabilities as other packages are. IMHO these shouldn't be treated as new releases, but as fixes, which is exactly what they are. Just like when someone releases a new build of a package. That's why the lesser minor was created, and why I think it should arrive faster than other packages in the stable repo.
This way I could get and compile my own source without discrepancies from the headers package, often needed by other packages. Otherwise, I should have a "stable" headers package and the latest full kernel sources providing kernel26. The source is not unstable by itself. It is what I do of it that makes it a risk. But this happens with many softwares, doesn't it?

What does that have to do with anything under discussion? We're talking about the kernel binary + kernel headers.  If you compile your own kernel of a different version, then OF COURSE your headers will be different, unless you install the headers with your new kernel as the PKGBUILD does - if you compile a new kernel because you feel the release speed isn't fast enough, do you really thing a new kernel-headers package is going to release any faster?
using the default arch package, the kernel binary and headers are provided.  If you want to compile your own kernel, fine, do that - just provide your own headers in that case - it's not hard.

bardo wrote:

Another reason because I don't use that PKGBUILD is because abs doesn't work on my machine, but that's totally OT here big_smile

abs is a bash script... there's no possible way it could fail unless:
a) you don't have cvsup installed (abs will spit out a big fat error saying "install cvsup" if you don't)
b) you don't have a network connection
c) user error

hell, you don't need to use abs to build a package - "man makepkg"

Offline

#15 2005-06-05 11:27:19

bardo
Member
From: Milano, Italia
Registered: 2004-12-06
Posts: 90
Website

Re: Reasonable to have compile kernel + source package?

phrakture wrote:

What does that have to do with anything under discussion? We're talking about the kernel binary + kernel headers.  If you compile your own kernel of a different version, then OF COURSE your headers will be different, unless you install the headers with your new kernel as the PKGBUILD does - if you compile a new kernel because you feel the release speed isn't fast enough, do you really thing a new kernel-headers package is going to release any faster?
using the default arch package, the kernel binary and headers are provided.  If you want to compile your own kernel, fine, do that - just provide your own headers in that case - it's not hard.

Mmmh... maybe I was wrong thinking to the kernel versions... I just thought there could be a headers/binary package and the source package. This is my opinion strictly about the topic.
About how to realize it, my thought was to update the kernel source more often than the others packages, at least if it is a minor update, because it does not need an extensive testing time.

Maybe you're right, this is just pointless.

OT section:

phrakture wrote:

abs is a bash script... there's no possible way it could fail unless:
a) you don't have cvsup installed (abs will spit out a big fat error saying "install cvsup" if you don't)
b) you don't have a network connection
c) user error

hell, you don't need to use abs to build a package - "man makepkg"

I know how to build a package smile I'd just want to update the current tree with the official builds. As you can see I have a network connection, I have cvsup and I just call "abs" without any argument added with the default supfiles, but I've tried to modify them as well. I just get a timeout.
All about it in my desolating empty thread: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=12563

I think it is a serious issue, because I've seen other people with this problem and noone solved it.


dreaming in digital / living in realtime / thinking in binary / talking in ip / welcome to our world...

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB