Hi,
lots of people in various SIGs and user side projects are keen on bringing up a mainline kernel, that tracks upstream closer than the distro kernel does.
I'd like to start a conversation around which kernel we might be able to maintain as a group, that also helps most people solve the problems they are looking at.
3.18 seems to be the stable-release at the moment, but given that 3.19 is just around the corner, should we try and aim for that ?
regards
Why not just distribute elrepo-like kernels where -lt will represent latest long-term and -ml for mainline branch?
2015-02-06 14:25 GMT+03:00 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
Hi,
lots of people in various SIGs and user side projects are keen on bringing up a mainline kernel, that tracks upstream closer than the distro kernel does.
I'd like to start a conversation around which kernel we might be able to maintain as a group, that also helps most people solve the problems they are looking at.
3.18 seems to be the stable-release at the moment, but given that 3.19 is just around the corner, should we try and aim for that ?
regards
-- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 06/02/15 11:46, Vladimir Stackov wrote:
Why not just distribute elrepo-like kernels where -lt will represent latest long-term and -ml for mainline branch?
someone is going to haveto maintain these, and it might be easier if a larger group was focusing on a smaller set of packages. having said that, if you offer to maintain whatever is the latest LTS kernel release, you are most welcome to do that.
2015-02-06 14:25 GMT+03:00 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
Hi,
lots of people in various SIGs and user side projects are keen on bringing up a mainline kernel, that tracks upstream closer than the distro kernel does.
I'd like to start a conversation around which kernel we might be able to maintain as a group, that also helps most people solve the problems they are looking at.
3.18 seems to be the stable-release at the moment, but given that 3.19 is just around the corner, should we try and aim for that ?
regards
-- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Ok, I'll be happy to put some effort to make CentOS and elrepo closer to each other.
What is the starting point? I mean something like https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers but for CentOS project.
And what about trust? Don't you care if someone from a side (e.g. me) will maintain dedicated kernel packages?
2015-02-06 15:01 GMT+03:00 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
On 06/02/15 11:46, Vladimir Stackov wrote:
Why not just distribute elrepo-like kernels where -lt will represent latest long-term and -ml for mainline branch?
someone is going to haveto maintain these, and it might be easier if a larger group was focusing on a smaller set of packages. having said that, if you offer to maintain whatever is the latest LTS kernel release, you are most welcome to do that.
2015-02-06 14:25 GMT+03:00 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
Hi,
lots of people in various SIGs and user side projects are keen on bringing up a mainline kernel, that tracks upstream closer than the distro kernel does.
I'd like to start a conversation around which kernel we might be able to maintain as a group, that also helps most people solve the problems they are looking at.
3.18 seems to be the stable-release at the moment, but given that 3.19 is just around the corner, should we try and aim for that ?
regards
-- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Hi,
lots of people in various SIGs and user side projects are keen on bringing up a mainline kernel, that tracks upstream closer than the distro kernel does.
Kernel integration and maintenance of someone else's code tree is a lot of work. Been there, done that, have the scar tissue and the forced resignation of a kernel team. I have stories about that, but the team was basically backporting desired changes from newer kernels into their "stable" old kernel. It was the equivalent of shoving RHEL 6 kernels into an RHEL 7 operating system for "stability" and to "perserve optimizatoins" Anyway: this kind of effort can get very tricky, very fast, when related dependencies get involved. This is especially true for filesystems and hardware integration. And the resources needed can be very difficult to predict, especially when kernel compilation is sensitive to gcc and glibc and mkfs and NFS and dbus and USB and audio, etc., etc.
Kernel development also badly needs test hardware, at least for regression testing. Where would this come from?
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Hi,
lots of people in various SIGs and user side projects are keen on bringing up a mainline kernel, that tracks upstream closer than the distro kernel does.
I'd like to start a conversation around which kernel we might be able to maintain as a group, that also helps most people solve the problems they are looking at.
3.18 seems to be the stable-release at the moment, but given that 3.19 is just around the corner, should we try and aim for that ?
Hi,
The biggest question is indeed what version the SIG's need. Are they ok with the latest longterm release (currently 3.14) or do they want the latest stable (currently 3.18) (https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html)? Ideally we can get everyone agree on one specific kernel.
The elrepo kernel seem like a nice starting point to do this. So it would be nice if we can work together on this.
So SIG's, what kernel do you need?
My vote would be on at last 3.14 or higher. I would like to tryout Ceph in the future and this is their requirement.
Kind regards, Tim
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Tim Verhoeven tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Hi,
lots of people in various SIGs and user side projects are keen on bringing up a mainline kernel, that tracks upstream closer than the distro kernel does.
I'd like to start a conversation around which kernel we might be able to maintain as a group, that also helps most people solve the problems they are looking at.
3.18 seems to be the stable-release at the moment, but given that 3.19 is just around the corner, should we try and aim for that ?
Hi,
The biggest question is indeed what version the SIG's need. Are they ok with the latest longterm release (currently 3.14) or do they want the latest stable (currently 3.18) (https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html)? Ideally we can get everyone agree on one specific kernel.
The elrepo kernel seem like a nice starting point to do this.
Johnny thought so, too. :-) And he created and has been maintaining the 3.10 kernel for Xen4CentOS for CentOS-6. The same should be easily done for a newer version.
Akemi
-
Akemi Yagi -
Karanbir Singh -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Tim Verhoeven -
Vladimir Stackov