Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
GENTOO_LINUX flag in gentoo-sources-3.10.7
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jonnevers
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 1593
Location: Gentoo64 land

PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:03 pm    Post subject: GENTOO_LINUX flag in gentoo-sources-3.10.7 Reply with quote

There is a new token in linux-3.10.7.

GENTOO_LINUX is this just related to gentoo-sources? theres no help available for the option group but it seems just related to init support atm and the internet seems to not like the search terms :)

GENTOO_LINUX
GENTOO_LINUX_INIT_SCRIPT
GENTOO_LINUX_INIT_SYSTEMD

then it gives options for init system's supported; openrc and/or systemd.

Code:
blue linux # time make -j7 bzImage modules
  HOSTCC  scripts/basic/fixdep
  HOSTCC  scripts/kconfig/conf.o
  SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.c
  SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/zconf.lex.c
  SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/zconf.hash.c
  HOSTCC  scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.o
  HOSTLD  scripts/kconfig/conf
scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig
*
* Restart config...
*
*
* Gentoo Linux
*
Gentoo Linux support (GENTOO_LINUX) [Y/n] (NEW) ?

There is no help available for this option.
Symbol: GENTOO_LINUX [=y]
Type  : boolean
Prompt: Gentoo Linux support
  Location:
    -> Gentoo Linux
  Defined at distro/Kconfig:3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1550

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The main reason that I introduced this is for the ensuring users get a bootable setting by simply using the defaults (and enabling their hardware and file systems on top of that); previously, using the defaults causes an unbootable system for most people. This is because of the DEVTMPFS option you can easily skip over; from now on, people will no longer have to manually change that.

GENTOO_LINUX enables GENTOO_LINUX_UDEV, which reads the following:

Quote:
In order to boot Gentoo Linux a minimal set of config settings needs to
be enabled in the kernel; to avoid the users from having to enable them
manually as part of a Gentoo Linux installation or a new clean config,
we enable these config settings by default for convenience.

Currently this only selects TMPFS, DEVTMPFS and their dependencies.
TMPFS is enabled to maintain a tmpfs file system at /dev/shm, /run and
/sys/fs/cgroup; DEVTMPFS to maintain a devtmpfs file system at /dev.

Some of these are critical files that need to be available early in the
boot process; if not available, it causes sysfs and udev to malfunction.

To ensure Gentoo Linux boots, it is best to leave this option enabled;
if you run a custom setup, you could consider whether to disable this.


As for the init systems, that is an experiment to aid users; such that instead of searching all the options, the can just enable one option and support the init system. For example, here is the help message for systemd:

Quote:
The init system is the first thing that loads after the kernel booted.

These config settings allow you to select which init systems to support;
instead of having to select all the individual settings all over the
place, these settings allows you to select all the settings at once.

This particular setting enables all the known requirements for systemd;
it also enables suggested optional settings, as the package suggests to.


And this is the set of settings (and the dependencies of those settings) that it selects as per the ebuild and the upstream requirements:

Quote:
select AUTOFS4_FS
select BLK_DEV_BSG
select CGROUPS
select EPOLL
select FANOTIFY
select HOTPLUG
select INOTIFY_USER
select IPV6
select NET
select PROC_FS
select SIGNALFD
select SYSFS
select TIMERFD

select ANON_INODES
select BLOCK
select EVENTFD
select FSNOTIFY
select INET
select NLATTR


When the older kernels are out of the Portage tree I am going to start suggesting simplifying changes to the documentation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2271
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice to know so that I can avoid the attempt at yet another redhat clone.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yagami
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 12 May 2002
Posts: 220
Location: Leiria, Portugal

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice !

Would be great if all packages that need kernel configuration options to work did this.

UFW comes to mind... it will not run if some modules are missing.

Some menu like Gentoo , then "UFW" that we could not set, m or y. and it would select all the UFW configuration options
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1550

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
Nice to know so that I can avoid the attempt at yet another redhat clone.


Not sure how this is an attempt at a clone? Can you explain?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smartass
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Posts: 189
Location: right behind you ... (you did turn around, didn't you?)

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yagami wrote:

Would be great if all packages that need kernel configuration options to work did this.

Some packages use CONFIG_CHECK from he linux-info eclass. It would require a lot of maintenance to keep the "convenience .config options" up to date, right now CONFIG_CHECK is a reasonable compromise. UFW uses it too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1550

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

smartass wrote:
Some packages use CONFIG_CHECK from he linux-info eclass. It would require a lot of maintenance to keep the "convenience .config options" up to date, right now CONFIG_CHECK is a reasonable compromise. UFW uses it too.


Well, that's just a matter of capturing the state of the CONFIG_CHECKs in tree and diffing it every now and then, or use a procmail rule to capture commits; we just want to spare out work, any big changes we will be aware of and any small changes the user can probably still do manually if we don't catch them in time. There's a huge difference between searching 5 options and searching 1 option. But yes, I will work on something to catch changes like these! Thanks for the thought... :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonnevers
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 1593
Location: Gentoo64 land

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks for the thorough response. i think this is a very nice feature. and putting the init system out in front like this is also nice, very clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marlo
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 1147

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you good work,

is it still possible to insert

DEBUG_KERNEL [=y]
SCHED_DEBUG [=y]
SCHEDSTATS [=y]

Then the systemd-bootchart support turned on.

Ma
_________________
Test Adobe Flash Player
The Indian Shankar Drum Ganesh Machine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1550

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We don't enable optional options by default at the moment; but, we can look into that for a next kernel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marlo
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 1147

PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thx
_________________
Test Adobe Flash Player
The Indian Shankar Drum Ganesh Machine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
We don't enable optional options by default at the moment; but, we can look into that for a next kernel.

default optional options :lol:
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1550

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
TomWij wrote:
We don't enable optional options by default at the moment; but, we can look into that for a next kernel.

default optional options :lol:


Yeah, like when you buy a car...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I get it, I just thought it was humorous.
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aonoa
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 May 2002
Posts: 576
Location: Oslo, Norway

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I noticed this grouping in the kernel recently as well. My kernel was already functioning properly with systemd, but it's nice to have an easy way of enabling the proper dependencies. Thank you.
_________________
Dive into Gentoo Linux and emerge into a new world
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reisio
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Posts: 117

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t get it. Is it going to magically toggle on all the hardware support one needs to boot as well? Why not just use an enormous modular kernel like other distros? Why even have a set of install instructions one has to input manually? Why not just use binaries instead of source?

This seems at odds with the Gentoo way to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wuzzerd
Guru
Guru


Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 431
Location: New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Using them my system failed to boot, so I disabled them. More study is necessary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

reisio wrote:
I don’t get it. Is it going to magically toggle on all the hardware support one needs to boot as well? Why not just use an enormous modular kernel like other distros? Why even have a set of install instructions one has to input manually? Why not just use binaries instead of source?

This seems at odds with the Gentoo way to me.

I agree. It should be as hard as possible, dammit! And what's with all these makefiles; we should be configuring the kernel using ed.
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reisio
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Posts: 117

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I agree. It should be as hard as possible, dammit! And what's with all these makefiles; we should be configuring the kernel using ed.

So where exactly do you draw the line, BoneKracker?

You seem to have ignored my questions. Why not just use binaries? Wouldn’t that be less “hard”? Wouldn’t using a distro other than Gentoo be?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

reisio wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I agree. It should be as hard as possible, dammit! And what's with all these makefiles; we should be configuring the kernel using ed.

So where exactly do you draw the line, BoneKracker?

You seem to have ignored my questions. Why not just use binaries? Wouldn’t that be less “hard”? Wouldn’t using a distro other than Gentoo be?

I actually kind of agree with you. I was just making fun of the arbitrary nature of your logic. You ask the right question: "where does one draw the line".

I don't have the answer, but it should be based on some kind of principles and heuristics and neither arbitrary adoption nor rejection of every "good idea" that comes long.

For example, by your model, I would think that genkernel would be anathema and in conflict with "the Gentoo way" as you see it. Is it?

What are our guidelines?
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1550

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
For example, by your model, I would think that genkernel would be anathema and in conflict with "the Gentoo way" as you see it. Is it?

What are our guidelines?


http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml

Contrary to your example, Genkernel can be considered as being done "the Gentoo way"; highly configurable (/etc/genkernel.conf as well as passing options) and it doesn't really force you in any particular way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
For example, by your model, I would think that genkernel would be anathema and in conflict with "the Gentoo way" as you see it. Is it?

What are our guidelines?


http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml

Contrary to your example, Genkernel can be considered as being done "the Gentoo way"; highly configurable (/etc/genkernel.conf as well as passing options) and it doesn't really force you in any particular way.

Well, there's not much of any architectural value there, but based on what's there, I see two loci:

1. flexibility / freedom of choice
2. transparency / ease of use

This set of kernel configuration options doesn't seem contrary to either, because it neither forces the user to do things one way, nor makes it harder for them to do what they choose.

In fact, it would seem to be aimed directly at facilitating the choice between (a) vanilla; (b) openrc; and (c) systemd in a manner that is transparent and easy, by the user not having to familiarize themselves with the details of kernel configuration requirements of their chosen init/rc system. To wit:
Quote:
When a tool is doing its job perfectly, you might not even be very aware of its presence, because it does not interfere and make its presence known, nor does it force you to interact with it when you don't want it to. The tool serves the user rather than the user serving the tool.


Now, it's also a possibility that those two paragraphs at the link don't accurately convey the totality of "the Gentoo philosophy" or that there are other guidelines, such as architectural principles, standard generic methods, or policies, that come into play. And maybe there are some that exist in an implicit fashion and are not documented, or are documented poorly. So, is there something else besides this one "philosophy" that would indicate one way or the other whether these kernel configuration options are consistent with "the Gentoo way"?

If not, I suppose it's pretty hard to argue that they are not "the Gentoo way".
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reisio
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Posts: 117

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
…is there something else…

At least partially repeating myself here:
  1. Even with genpatches, we have always (or at least for the past near-decade?) been about manually configuring a kernel, even including the heading “Default: Manual Configuration” in preference over genkernel.
  2. Adding CONFIG_GENTOO items doesn’t allow one to ignore kernel configuration altogether, making it at best a half-measure.
  3. Since genkernel pretty much does allow one to ignore configuration altogether, this approach is doubly redundant.
  4. Either people are willing and able to follow clear instruction to configure a kernel, or they aren’t; adding a middle ground will simultaneously not really help those who aren’t, and cruft up the kernel of those who are.
  5. TomWij wrote:
    going to start suggesting simplifying changes to the documentation
    Replacing Gentoo-specific documentation with Gentoo-specific cruft in the name of simplicity (or really anything at all, IMO), is folly.

tldr: it’s simply redundant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1550

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

reisio wrote:
  1. Even with genpatches, we have always (or at least for the past near-decade?) been about manually configuring a kernel, even including the heading “Default: Manual Configuration” in preference over genkernel.


Correct, genkernel is there as an alternative to make generation of the kernel simpler, we're not changing any of that.

reisio wrote:
  • Adding CONFIG_GENTOO items doesn’t allow one to ignore kernel configuration altogether, making it at best a half-measure.


  • Well, that's not what it intends to do; so, it therefore shouldn't be measured that way.

    reisio wrote:
  • Since genkernel pretty much does allow one to ignore configuration altogether, this approach is doubly redundant.


  • From a genkernel default configuration perspective, it actually removes redundancy in its default config. Though the introduction has nothing to do with genkernel; so, this isn't a measurement either.

    reisio wrote:
  • Either people are willing and able to follow clear instruction to configure a kernel, or they aren’t; adding a middle ground will simultaneously not really help those who aren’t, and cruft up the kernel of those who are.


  • As reported numerous times already, it does help them and I no longer hear people experience the original problem; therefore it is not cruft, as it shows to be useful.

    reisio wrote:
  • TomWij wrote:
    going to start suggesting simplifying changes to the documentation
    Replacing Gentoo-specific documentation with Gentoo-specific cruft in the name of simplicity (or really anything at all, IMO), is folly.
    tldr: it’s simply redundant


  • As shown above, it is not. Just because it is a change doesn't mean it is cruft or redundant; if it bothers you just turn off that single option, but don't make it into an unnecessary problem just because you don't see its usefulness.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    ulenrich
    Veteran
    Veteran


    Joined: 10 Oct 2010
    Posts: 1146

    PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    +1 @TomWij
    I think this gentoo-sources is a giant step for Gentoo:

    - How many newcomers gave up with Gentoo because of this rather
    big first step to get a running kernel
    - How many Gnome users recently had problems to upgrade
    - How many do that patching by hand to get Bfq working

    For a long time the only difference between vanilla and gentoo-sources
    just was fbcondecor ...

    PS: Some time ago there was a discussion at kernel.org about to
    introduce individual distribution presets (to get the user known what
    is essentially needed by Debian,Gentoo,Fedora etc), I wonder if this fits there
    to get upstream ?
    _________________
    fun2gen2
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
    Goto page 1, 2  Next
    Page 1 of 2

     
    Jump to:  
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum