[CentOS-devel] [altarch?] Naming scheme and lorax parameters for userland + non-distro kernel builds

[Karanbir Singh]

On 03/02/16 13:32, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> On 03/02/16 14:24, Brian Stinson wrote:
>> Hi All,
> 
>> I'm working on putting some things together for a couple of the
>> Intel boards (Edison, Jaguarboard, etc.) and was wondering if
>> there's a standard way we should be naming things on the install
>> media.
> 
>> For the rpi2, we use 'CentOS Altarch 7 (1511) Userland for armhfp'
> 
>> A lot of the Intel boards out there require a newer or otherwise 
>> non-distro kernel so I was considering titling the install media
>> like this:
> 
>> CentOS Altarch 7 (1511) Userland for x86_64
> 
>> Not sure if the 'Altarch' bit applies because it's the standard
>> x86_64 userland (no rebuilding needed).
> 
>> Cheers! --Brian
> 
> Well, indeed pros and cons ... I'd use "Userland" to show indeed that
> kernel isn't the one from CentOs 7 x86_64 (like we did for armhfp) but
> I'd remove the AltArch tag. otoh, if that image would be produced
> under the AltArch SIG umbrella, it's worth keeping it in the name.

When we spoke about this - the intention of Userland was to communicate
that we were going to work with or use a vendor supplied kernel ( eg.
for rpi2 ) - so the experience and feature set was largely set by them,
whereas CentOS provided the userland.

If we are still going to curate that kernel - we might not need that.
certainly something worth talking about when we know the specifics.

Also, with all the newer kernel req's - it might be good to actually
just adopt a 4.x kernel into centos-plus and go with that

regards


-- 
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc