[arch-general] Why did kernel packaging become slow?

[Bruno Pagani]

Le 08/05/2016 à 15:01, Abderrahman Najjar a écrit :

> ​May I ask what are the patches applied? i.e. what's the difference between
> the package in the repo, and a vanilla source compiled kernel?

Kernel configuration is not about patches (only one in ArchLinux
currenty, which you can find here[1] BTW, sometimes they are more when
critical fixes takes time to come down from upstream).

It’s about the config flags (look at both config files in the above
link), and related issues reported by users. If you look at the commit
log[2] and dig into the actual commits, you will see changes done each
time. And if you ever compiled a kernel by yourself, you know that they
are tons of them.

So, you have to track new flags added upstream, what they do and what
implies each value of them in order to choose the sensible default for
Arch users. Then, someone might also open a bug report because his
beloved flag is missing, but you have to look for the consequences of
changing that flag for others users.

In a few words, kernel packaging is not a job of fixing things that
should be fixed upstream by adding patches, it’s about carefully
selecting the kernel configuration to suit most user cases.

So yes, kernel packaging isn’t a trivial task, and I too trust our
kernel maintainers to do the right thing, taking their time for it. :)
If you don’t like that, you’re free to compile your own version (which
has some benefits too). ;)

Bruno

[1]:
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/linux
[2]:
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/log/trunk?h=packages/linux



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20160508/a11db95f/attachment.asc>