Linux-libre

Linux-libre

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

I just noticed the following:

$ guix package -A linux-libre
linux-libre     3.13.7  out     gnu/packages/linux.scm:210:3
linux-libre-headers     3.3.8   out     gnu/packages/linux.scm:97:3

Should the two versions not be made to coincide?

I came acroos this when looking for linux/module.h, for which the configure
of kmod looks, itself a dependency of udev. Apparently, we do not have this
header file, while it is available in the debian package
linux-headers-3.2.0-4-common. How come?

Andreas

Re: Linux-libre

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> I just noticed the following:
>
> $ guix package -A linux-libre
> linux-libre     3.13.7  out     gnu/packages/linux.scm:210:3
> linux-libre-headers     3.3.8   out     gnu/packages/linux.scm:97:3
>
> Should the two versions not be made to coincide?

No.

The problem is that the headers are what libc builds against.  It
doesn’t need the latest version (in fact, we build it with
--enable-kernel=2.6.30.)

> I came acroos this when looking for linux/module.h, for which the configure
> of kmod looks, itself a dependency of udev.

I suspect the problem is that linux-libre-headers is build with the
default config, which may lack some features, and so as a side effect
some headers are not installed.

That would need investigation, but if this is correct, let’s fix that in
core-updates.

Would you like to look into it?  Or maybe Alírio?  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Linux-libre

[Andreas Enge]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> The problem is that the headers are what libc builds against.  It
> doesn’t need the latest version (in fact, we build it with
> --enable-kernel=2.6.30.)

I still do not quite get it. If not necessary, it would albeit be allowed to
have the same versions, no? Then why do we not make this choice and maybe
update to a long term kernel in core-updates as suggested in the discussion
following
   http://bugs.gnu.org/14851 ?
How about creating one package linux-libre with two outputs 'out' and
'headers'?

When I noticed that udev was looking for kmod, I started packaging it. The
debian web page states it is a replacement of module-init-tools, and indeed
it seems to contain the same binaries (lsmod etc.). I tried to configure udev
with module-init-tools as an input, but it still asks for kmod. Our linux-libre
package has module-init-tools as an input; should we use kmod instead? Then
if kmod requires the kernel headers, my suggestion of the previous paragraph
would not work.

> I suspect the problem is that linux-libre-headers is build with the
> default config, which may lack some features, and so as a side effect
> some headers are not installed.
> Would you like to look into it?  Or maybe Alírio?  :-)

I am having a quick look at it, but I would gladly step back for someone more
knowledgeable! My only interest in all this is actually to compile kdelibs;
my bug report that it does not require udev according to its configure phase,
but does not compile without it, has not seen a resolution so far.

Andreas

Re: Linux-libre

[Andreas Enge]

The one thing I noticed is that the build phase does a
   make defconfig
followed by a
   make mrproper

From the documentation obtained with "make help":
  defconfig       - New config with default from ARCH supplied defconfig
  mrproper        - Remove all generated files + config + various backup files
Indeed, defconfig creates a file .config, which is deleted by mrproper.

Independently of guix, I tried to drop the mrproper phase, but still no
linux/module.h was installed.

Andreas

Re: Linux-libre

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> The problem is that the headers are what libc builds against.  It
>> doesn’t need the latest version (in fact, we build it with
>> --enable-kernel=2.6.30.)
>
> I still do not quite get it. If not necessary, it would albeit be allowed to
> have the same versions, no?

Yes.

> Then why do we not make this choice and maybe update to a long term
> kernel in core-updates as suggested in the discussion following
> http://bugs.gnu.org/14851 ?  How about creating one package
> linux-libre with two outputs 'out' and 'headers'?

We can’t do that, because changing linux-libre-headers entails a full
rebuild.  Thus, we want a stable linux-libre-headers.  Also, libc is
decoupled from the actual kernel version, so we don’t have to worry
here.

> When I noticed that udev was looking for kmod, I started packaging it. The
> debian web page states it is a replacement of module-init-tools, and indeed
> it seems to contain the same binaries (lsmod etc.). I tried to configure udev
> with module-init-tools as an input, but it still asks for kmod. Our linux-libre
> package has module-init-tools as an input; should we use kmod instead? Then
> if kmod requires the kernel headers, my suggestion of the previous paragraph
> would not work.

Oh, I see.  That vaguely rings a bell.  Using kmod looks like the better
long-term solution, so we’ll have to figure that out.

>> I suspect the problem is that linux-libre-headers is build with the
>> default config, which may lack some features, and so as a side effect
>> some headers are not installed.
>> Would you like to look into it?  Or maybe Alírio?  :-)
>
> I am having a quick look at it, but I would gladly step back for someone more
> knowledgeable! My only interest in all this is actually to compile kdelibs;
> my bug report that it does not require udev according to its configure phase,
> but does not compile without it, has not seen a resolution so far.

Recursive troubleshooting.  :-)

Ludo’.