On 7 June 2011 17:54, James Westby wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:29:38 -0500, Kate Stewart
> wrote:
>> This is a format that can go outside the packages (as well as in), so
>> can be used without marshalling the entire Debian community to adopt it.
>> So, am not advocating it be pushed by Lina
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:45 AM, James Westby
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:20:57 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
> wrote:
>> That's true, and I didn't finish my original sentence but I would have
>> pointed out that more complete hardware packs would contain other
>> vendor-supplied binaries. H
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:29:38 -0500, Kate Stewart
wrote:
> This is a format that can go outside the packages (as well as in), so
> can be used without marshalling the entire Debian community to adopt it.
> So, am not advocating it be pushed by Linaro engineering for adoption
> inside Debian packag
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:26:20 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> However, thinking a bit further, it would be nice to have a reference to
> both the final branch (which the package was generated from) and the
> original, sans-packaging branch which the packaging branch added to.
> However, doe
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:20:57 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> That's true, and I didn't finish my original sentence but I would have
> pointed out that more complete hardware packs would contain other
> vendor-supplied binaries. Having a version for them described would be
> great to have f
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:28:10 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> > One very cheap thing we could do is to produce a report when building
> > the hwpack that tells you which archive each binary package that was
> > used came from. You can sort of do this now (assuming there aren't
> > clashing
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:33:27PM +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
>> One of the things it does not capture currently is kernel
>> configuration. Assuming you can cat /proc/config it would be easy to
>> capture that as well but I woul
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:59:32AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 13:40, James Westby wrote:
> > Hi Zach,
> >
> > In addition I realised that some of the information requested isn't
> > explicit in what you propose.
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:59:46 -0500, Zach Pfeffer
> > wrote:
On 6 June 2011 13:40, James Westby wrote:
> Hi Zach,
>
> In addition I realised that some of the information requested isn't
> explicit in what you propose.
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:59:46 -0500, Zach Pfeffer
> wrote:
>> I went through Kiko's request:
>>
>> - What kernel tree it was built fro
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:48:31AM +0100, Andy Green wrote:
> At least for the config,
>
> CONFIG_IKCONFIG=y
> CONFIG_IKCONFIG_PROC=y
Is this not used everywhere, and if not, why not?
--
Christian Robottom Reis | [+55 16] 3376 0125 | http://launchpad.net/~kiko
Canonical Ltd.| [+5
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 05:21:14PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> I don't think we should be looking to attribute the provenance of every
> line of source that ends up in the hwpack in one report, we just need to
> shorten the chain to find the information that you care about.
That is a very good po
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:33:27PM +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> One of the things it does not capture currently is kernel
> configuration. Assuming you can cat /proc/config it would be easy to
> capture that as well but I would like to know what others think.
James has rightly pointed out that
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:13:40PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> Luckily I missed that call, I have no confusion and this sounds
> perfectly sensible to me :-)
Though now I'm stuck with a confusing Subject line to compensate :-/
> The config is available in /boot isn't it?
Good point.
> As for w
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 20:19 -0400, James Westby wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:05:54 -0500, Kate Stewart
> wrote:
> > After every FileName: there should be a FileChecksum: field.
> >
> > For each file listed in the package, the fields that are mandatory and
> > should show up are:
> > - Fi
Hi Kate,
Thanks for the information. I have some responses inline. To be clear
I'm veering in to commentary on the format itself for a lot of this,
rather than specific statements on whether I think Linaro should use it
or not.
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:05:54 -0500, Kate Stewart
wrote:
> If there
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 16:37 -0400, James Westby wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:37:18 -0500, Zach Pfeffer
> wrote:
> > The spec says:
> >
> > 4.6Source Information
> > 4.6.1Purpose: This is a free form text field that contains additional
> > comments about the origin of the package. For instance,
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:37:18 -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
> The spec says:
>
> 4.6Source Information
> 4.6.1Purpose: This is a free form text field that contains additional
> comments about the origin of the package. For instance, this field
> might include comments indicating whether the package be
On 6 June 2011 11:45, James Westby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apologies for asking you directly what could probably be looked up, but
> the spec isn't very easy to digest.
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:59:46 -0500, Zach Pfeffer
> wrote:
>> PackageName: linux-linaro-omap 2.6.38-1002.3
>> #https://launchpad.net
Hi Zach,
In addition I realised that some of the information requested isn't
explicit in what you propose.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:59:46 -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
> I went through Kiko's request:
>
>- What kernel tree it was built from
>(A URL to the git tree)
>- What revision
>
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:45:35 +, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 16:30, James Westby wrote:
> > We should put this info somewhere else (use Vcs-* perhaps?) so that we can
> > provide
> > this information for other packages too.
>
> You can add additional user-defined fields to the contro
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 01/06/11 19:41, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> This week I initiated a confused conversation during the techleads
>> call about having a way to describe what the hardware pack was built
>> from. We had a c
On 6 June 2011 16:30, James Westby wrote:
> We should put this info somewhere else (use Vcs-* perhaps?) so that we can
> provide
> this information for other packages too.
You can add additional user-defined fields to the control file if it's
required or more convenient.
___
Hi,
Apologies for asking you directly what could probably be looked up, but
the spec isn't very easy to digest.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:59:46 -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
> PackageName: linux-linaro-omap 2.6.38-1002.3
> #https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-linaro-omap
> PackageDownloadLocatio
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:17:02 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Sorry I'm getting into this conversation a bit late but is there also
> a need to figure out what toolchain was used to build this hwpack and
> the way in which the toolchain was configured (v7-a, neon, vfp ,
> vfpv3-d16) and what v
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:48:31 +0100, Andy Green wrote:
> At least for the config,
>
> CONFIG_IKCONFIG=y
> CONFIG_IKCONFIG_PROC=y
>
> gets you a gzip of the config used in the kernel body readable by
> scripts/extract-ikconfig externally, and readable at runtime down
> /proc/config.gz. (sta
On 01/06/11 19:41, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> This week I initiated a confused conversation during the techleads
> call about having a way to describe what the hardware pack was built
> from. We had a couple of false starts but I think we agreeing that there
> needs to b
I went through Kiko's request:
- What kernel tree it was built from
(A URL to the git tree)
- What revision
(A revision ID)
- What patches were applied on top of it
(A URL to the patchset, maybe?)
- What kernel config was used to build it
(A separate file in
On 06/01/2011 10:21 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
Another cheap thing to do would be to dump the config from the kernel
package in to the output dir, so you can see the config without having
to download the hwpack or produce an image. This can be useful, much
like the new .manif
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:17:38 -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> No, not a tree of packaged kernels. I meant a single git tree that
> consolidates all
> the kernel source trees that we possibly build from to provide a
> single location
> where developers can grab any kernel we've used for builds. This wo
Speaking about Ubuntu packaged kernels only...
Everything that goes into the source package is in git.
Every release has a signed tag.
Ubuntu kernel package names have a strict naming convention that makes
upgrading and abi checking work right, so from my perspective putting
the tag name somewhere
> Zach suggested SPDX (as in spdx.org) as a solution to this problem; I'm
> not sure I understand enough about it (Loïc's provided a sample file at
> http://spdx.org/wiki/sample-partial-spdx-file-geronimo) but here's my
> strawman proposal of what data we should give people quick access to:
>
>
W dniu 01.06.2011 20:41, Christian Robottom Reis pisze:
Hello there,
This week I initiated a confused conversation during the techleads
call about having a way to describe what the hardware pack was built
from. We had a couple of false starts but I think we agreeing that there
needs to be s
On 1 June 2011 12:58, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote:
>> All official Linaro builds are generated from a single git tree that
>> has branches for different kernel versions that we build from being
>> automatically updated during the b
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:41:05 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> This week I initiated a confused conversation during the techleads
> call about having a way to describe what the hardware pack was built
> from. We had a couple of false starts but I think we agreeing that there
> needs to b
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> All official Linaro builds are generated from a single git tree that
> has branches for different kernel versions that we build from being
> automatically updated during the build process. The git rev is
> embedded in the kernel packa
On 1 June 2011 11:41, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> I seem to be hung up on having a way of saying "this hardware pack's
> kernel was built from this git tree with this config", so I wanted to
> explore the use cases a bit more:
>
> - My #1 use case is, once I've installed a hardware pack, r
Hello there,
This week I initiated a confused conversation during the techleads
call about having a way to describe what the hardware pack was built
from. We had a couple of false starts but I think we agreeing that there
needs to be some form of manifest that describes what the hardware pack
37 matches
Mail list logo
