linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] kbuild: add script and target to generate pacman package

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <41cf1da7-ef13-4586-9e9a-f1f8f3b34d8e@t-8ch.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:33:27 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, 
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>, "Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig)" <heftig@...hlinux.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] kbuild: add script and target to generate pacman
 package

On 2024-07-17 06:57:47+0000, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 05:51:21PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> ...
> > > > > diff --git a/scripts/package/PKGBUILD b/scripts/package/PKGBUILD
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 000000000000..eb3957fad915
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/scripts/package/PKGBUILD
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > > > +# Maintainer: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> > > > > +# Contributor: Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) <heftig@...hlinux.org>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +pkgbase=linux-upstream
> ...
> > Perhaps, this may make sense.
> > 
> > Currently,
> > pkgname=("${pkgbase}" "${pkgbase}-headers" "${pkgbase}-api-headers")
> > is hard-coded.
> > 
> > I do not think linux-upstream-headers make sense
> > when CONFIG_MODULE is disabled.
> > 
> > scripts/package/mkspec turns off with_devel
> > when CONFIG_MODULE is disabled.

Ack.

> Yes, I think that is a reasonable change to make. In the face of that
> potential change, would it make sense to slightly adjust the
> makedepends? pahole is only needed when CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF is enabled
> but I guess no other package building infrastructure makes dependencies
> conditional in that manner.

The pahole dependency optimization seems like an overcomplication.
Arch Linux in general is not hell-bent on minimizing dependencies,
for example there are no dev-packages at all.
Also if the kernel will require pahole in more cases it will create
churn.

> Another thing I wonder about would be allowing the user to customize the
> value of pkgbase, like
> 
>   pkgbase=${PACMAN_PKGBASE:-linux-upstream}
> 
> because unlike Debian and Fedora, multiple versions of the same kernel
> package cannot be installed at once. If I wanted to build a package
> against mainline and -next and install them side by side, I could only
> do so if they are named differently. This would allow one to provide
> PACMAN_PKGBASE=linux-mainline and PACMAN_PKGBASE=linux-next to
> accomplish that. Might be a hyper specific use case though, so I am not
> opposed to disregarding it.

Ack.

FYI linux-upstream was picked to be consistent with pkg-debian and not
to conflict with the existing linux-mainline package in AUR [0].

[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-mainline