[arch-dev-public] Kernel 4.11 status
Hi, Kernel package would be ready to push to [testing], Problems with binary modules again: nvidia: I have not yet found a patch that applies with older versions. Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is legal. http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935 Broken community modules: - r8169 - vhba-module Your opinion on pushing this to [testing]. Thx. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public < arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote:
Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is legal. http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).
- vhba-module
Added a patch to trunk.
Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
Since I have an Optimus laptop, I'm interested in keeping the nvidia driver functional...
On 05/05/17 at 06:58am, Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public < arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote:
Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is legal. http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).
There is a patch for 4.12 to undo the change from GregKH. [1] [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d557d1b58b3546bab2c5bc2d624c5709840... -- Jelle van der Waa
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:04:03PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 05/05/17 at 06:58am, Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public < arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote:
Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is legal. http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).
There is a patch for 4.12 to undo the change from GregKH. [1]
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d557d1b58b3546bab2c5bc2d624c5709840...
-- Jelle van der Waa
That patch is in the queue for 4.11.1 too, so once 4.11.1 lands the nvidia driver should build as expected. I'm going to test later today if everything builds fine with this patch applied. -- Ike
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:52:06PM +0200, Ike Devolder wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:04:03PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 05/05/17 at 06:58am, Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public < arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote:
Problematic with 4.11, license needs to be patched I don't think this is legal. http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=1935
We could patch the kernel to make the needed symbols non-GPL instead. That at least sounds less problematic (IANAL).
There is a patch for 4.12 to undo the change from GregKH. [1]
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d557d1b58b3546bab2c5bc2d624c5709840...
-- Jelle van der Waa
That patch is in the queue for 4.11.1 too, so once 4.11.1 lands the nvidia driver should build as expected. I'm going to test later today if everything builds fine with this patch applied.
-- Ike
So with the patch given above or from the 4.11.1 queue [1] there are no more issues with the nvidia drivers. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/plai... -- Ike
On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1 for having 4.11 in [testing]. Bartłomiej
Le 5 mai 2017 23:32:58 GMT+02:00, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski"
On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1 for having 4.11 in [testing].
Bartłomiej
+1 from me too, people relying on those modules can probably live on LTS while they are fixed, especially since LTS is just one version behind currently. ;) Bruno
On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1 for having 4.11 in [testing].
Bartłomiej
I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
On 2017-05-06 08:28, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1 for having 4.11 in [testing].
Bartłomiej
I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion.
Greetings,
Pierre
There is a difference between intentional breakage caused by our laziness (we could fix the code, but we did not) and some proprietary blob that we don't control. The bug is the driver itself. Bartłomiej
On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 21:54 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
On 2017-05-06 08:28, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On 05.05.2017 23:32, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
On 2017-05-05 08:29, Tobias Powalowski via arch-dev-public wrote:
Your opinion on pushing this to [testing].
I can't care less about binary modules that keep causing problems. +1 for having 4.11 in [testing].
Bartłomiej
I disagree. We should not break [testing] on purpose. We actually want people to use [testing] to look for unknown bugs. If we want to drop support for the nvidia module that would be a different discussion.
Greetings,
Pierre
There is a difference between intentional breakage caused by our laziness (we could fix the code, but we did not) and some proprietary blob that we don't control. The bug is the driver itself.
Bartłomiej
We should continue to make no difference between proprietary softwares and not in our packaging quality as long as they are in our official repositories. I didn't read a reason to rush on this before getting more feedback from upstreams. Not to mention that the fix may finally land into the kernel package, which is pretty open. Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
Il giorno ven 5 mag 2017 alle ore 08:29 Tobias Powalowski via
arch-dev-public
Broken community modules: - r8169
I added a patch in trunk for r8168. -- Massimiliano Torromeo
participants (9)
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Bruno Pagani
-
Ike Devolder
-
Jan Alexander Steffens
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Massimiliano Torromeo
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Sébastien Luttringer
-
Tobias Powalowski