no more development-sources?

Message

andreas2000 · Post by **andreas2000** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:32 pm

Hello everybody,

today I've rsynced my machine at home and have seen, that it wants to update my currently installed development-sources to vanilla-sources. Why are development-sources gone? I've enjoyed it to automatically emerge a unpatched kernel and patch only things I'm needing...

does anybody have an idea why development sources are gone?

Thanks for your replies and have a nice evening!

Andreas

mod edit: made sticky --Earthwings

unstuck.
amne, 2005-07-15

codergeek42 · Post by **codergeek42** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:39 pm

I think by default Gentoo now uses the 2.6 kernel entirely, so installing vanilla-sources will give you the same results as if you had installed development-sources on an older profile or the like.

andreas2000 · Post by **andreas2000** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:47 pm

AFAIK: the vanilla-kernel is including several patches... or am I wrong? As I said before: I've enjoyed installing a "naked" kernel and patching just the things I'm needing. I've switched to development sources because I've had some problems with vanilla kernel and my NVIDIA GeForce FX GO 5200 Graphic Board in connection with IPW2100 WLAN drivers. And as I switched to development sources, never any problems again on any machine I've installed.

Maybe anyone could tell me if the vanilla-sources included in gentoo are unpatched or what were the differencies between "old good" development-sources and vanilla-sources?

Thanks for your patience with my questions...

Andreas.

firephoto · Post by **firephoto** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:57 pm

Ok with the change to getting vanilla-sources back for the 2.6 kernel I thought that would end getting the latest rc kernel and it did... last night, now I get sys-kernel/vanilla-sources-2.6.12_rc1 as an update this morning! And development sources do not exist at all in the tree?

Shouldn't vanilla be the lastest stable kernel and development be the latest rc kernel?

It was this way as long as vanilla was in the tree when it was masked but now that it's unmasked it gets updated to the latest rc kernel? what's up with that?

andreas2000 · Post by **andreas2000** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:11 pm

ok - I think I have it: in the GWN 20050124 it was mentioned that development-sources are now named vanilla-sources (Gentoo 2005.0) - the problem seems to be solved - I'll get back if having any troubles when updating...

nice evening!

Andreas.

Earthwings · Post by **Earthwings** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:13 pm

Merged http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-22 ... ml#2242524 in here.

firephoto · Post by **firephoto** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:22 pm

Also to go along with what I am saying, for the 2.4 kernels they don't have 2.4.30-rc3 in vanilla-sources they stop at 2.4.29 which is the lastest 2.4 version (non pre-patched).

I hope it's a error in the change over since until today it wasn't this way with vanilla-sources so you'd think if it going to be the exact same as development sources it would have been so as long as it was in the tree.

Earthwings · Post by **Earthwings** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:28 pm

Sorry for the stupid question, but 2.4.30_rcX was in Portage and not in an overlay?

firephoto · Post by **firephoto** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:30 pm

Earthwings wrote:Sorry for the stupid question, but 2.4.30_rcX was in Portage and not in an overlay?

No rc kernels for 2.4 but for 2.6 we get rc kernels in vanilla?

Code: Select all

# ls -l /usr/portage/sys-kernel/vanilla-sources/
total 105
-rw-r--r--  1 root root 12383 Mar 28 09:37 ChangeLog
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  3480 Mar 28 09:37 Manifest
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root  1112 Mar 28 07:05 files
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   452 Mar 28 07:35 metadata.xml
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  2748 Mar 16 01:34 vanilla-sources-2.0.40-r1.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  2747 Mar 16 01:34 vanilla-sources-2.2.26-r1.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   515 Jan 13 09:49 vanilla-sources-2.4.20.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   565 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.21.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   519 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.22.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   472 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.23.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   529 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.24-r1.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   534 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.25.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   472 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.26.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   472 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.27.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   472 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.28.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   480 Mar 28 09:37 vanilla-sources-2.4.29.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   475 Jan 21 12:36 vanilla-sources-2.6.10.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  1009 Mar 28 07:35 vanilla-sources-2.6.11.4.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  1009 Mar 28 07:35 vanilla-sources-2.6.11.5.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  1010 Mar 28 07:35 vanilla-sources-2.6.11.6.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   549 Mar  2 05:46 vanilla-sources-2.6.11.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   549 Mar 28 06:48 vanilla-sources-2.6.12_rc1.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   450 Jan 10 14:53 vanilla-sources-2.6.5.ebuild
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   456 Jan 10 14:53 vanilla-sources-2.6.7.ebuild

See latest 2.4 kernel is the stable release not an rc for the next version.

DaNIsH · Post by **DaNIsH** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:34 am

Hey,
Sorry for what will probably be a repost, but the closest I've been able to find is the "development-sources" sticky. Which IMO doesn't cover the question.
What happened to gentoo-dev-sources? I've been away from the comp for a while and was planning on unmerging some older kernel revisions, to find portage has no idea what "gentoo-dev-sources" is anymore.

Thanks in advance.

Merged with existing topic down to amne's post. --Maedhros.

Jarhead · Post by **Jarhead** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:27 am

Gentoo-dev-sources is pretty much development-sources with performance and stability patches built-in already.

DaNIsH · Post by **DaNIsH** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:38 am

So what is the equivalent of gentoo-dev-sources now then?
development-sources have been moved to vanilla-sources (masked), but they're unpatched.. so I wouldn't call them gentoo-dev-sources equivs.

noup · Post by **noup** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:02 am

I don't know if this is what you're asking - probably not - but, just in case, what used to be gentoo-dev-sources is now gentoo-sources. was this it?

DaNIsH · Post by **DaNIsH** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am

Ahh great, thanks! I'm pretty bad at structuring questions

Given M. Sur · Post by **Given M. Sur** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:08 am

So that's why etc-update wanted to change /etc/portage/package.keywords to say gentoo-sources instead of gentoo-dev-sources.

Personally, I think it's about time that gentoo-sources became a 2.6 kernel. But, it still seems odd that there is no gentoo-dev-sources anymore. Is it going to be started again when there's a 2.8 kernel, or is it gone forever?

drescherjm · Post by **drescherjm** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:11 am

Thanks. I was just going to ask about that since I wanted to update my gentoo-dev-sources and emerge said that package did not exist...

DaNIsH · Post by **DaNIsH** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:24 am

00420 wrote:So that's why etc-update wanted to change /etc/portage/package.keywords to say gentoo-sources instead of gentoo-dev-sources.

Personally, I think it's about time that gentoo-sources became a 2.6 kernel. But, it still seems odd that there is no gentoo-dev-sources anymore. Is it going to be started again when there's a 2.8 kernel, or is it gone forever?

Yeah, I found it pretty weird.
I don't like the fact that I have to unmask gentoo-sources now to keep up to date.

Given M. Sur · Post by **Given M. Sur** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:57 am

DaNIsH wrote:Yeah, I found it pretty weird.
I don't like the fact that I have to unmask gentoo-sources now to keep up to date.

Wow, I didn't even know it was masked. But a quick search of packages.gentoo.org confirms it. That is pretty lame.

amne · Post by **amne** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:37 am

Sources were renamed as announced here:
* development-sources -> vanilla-sources
* gentoo-dev-sources -> become gentoo-sources
* rsbac-dev-sources -> rsbac-sources
* hardened-dev-sources -> hardened-sources
* linux26-headers -> linux-headers

firephoto · Post by **firephoto** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:04 am

amne wrote:Sources were renamed as announced here:
* development-sources -> vanilla-sources
* gentoo-dev-sources -> become gentoo-sources
* rsbac-dev-sources -> rsbac-sources
* hardened-dev-sources -> hardened-sources
* linux26-headers -> linux-headers

That still doesn't explain why vanilla was keeping current with the stable kernel until the rename then it all of a sudden went to being release candidate kernels. Except for the 2.4 kernels that still get to be stable and not rc's.

Matje · Post by **Matje** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:27 pm

I presume that development (= unstable ?) kernels will just be masked. If you want them, you can unmask them. Pretty much the same as all the other packages in portage. I think kernels where the only package that stepped out of line by implementing a seperate package for the development version...

cdunham · Post by **cdunham** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:50 am

I presume that development (= unstable ?) kernels will just be masked.

You what happens when you presume. You make a pre out of Sue and me.

Anyway, the thing that is still unanswered about this is what voodoo led to the gentoo-sources package showing as hard masked in packages.gentoo.org, but they emerge just fine. Something to do with cascading profiles, but what? Are there other packages like this?

Earthwings · Post by **Earthwings** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:55 am

cdunham wrote:Anyway, the thing that is still unanswered about this is what voodoo led to the gentoo-sources package showing as hard masked in packages.gentoo.org, but they emerge just fine. Something to do with cascading profiles, but what? Are there other packages like this?

See http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-315212.html
linux-headers and *-sources are the only packages like that.

cdunham · Post by **cdunham** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:23 am

Not sure that really explains anything...

Post by **dsd** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:58 pm

ok, let me try and clear some things up!

before:

development-sources previously contained ebuilds for an unmodified 2.6 kernel. we also included -rc releases under development-sources.
vanilla-sources previously contained ebuilds for an unmodified 2.4 kernel.

gentoo-dev-sources previously contained ebuilds for a 2.6 kernel with a light patchset applied. this was our most supported kernel and we made sure not to include experimental stuff that we dont have control over.
gentoo-sources previously contained ebuilds for a 2.4 kernel patched with all sorts of things. this was supported but not to the same extent as gentoo-dev-sources

after:

vanilla-sources now contains ebuilds for unmodified 2.6 kernels and unmodified 2.4 kernels. 2.6 is the default. similarly to the old system, we include -rc releases for 2.6 and not for 2.4.

gentoo-sources now contains ebuilds for both the patched 2.4 gentoo kernel (previously known as gentoo-sources) and the lightly patched 2.6 gentoo kernel (previously known as gentoo-dev-sources)

nothing has changed except the package names where the ebuilds can be found (with the obvious exception of 2.6 now being the default)

to clarify peoples concerns individually:

andreas2000: vanilla-sources (both 2.4 and 2.6) is the "naked" kernel. vanilla-sources-2.6.x is the new name for the development-sources that you are used to.

firephoto: we have always split up our kernels by branch. for example we have previously kept 2.4 kernels under vanilla-sources and 2.6 kernels under development-sources. i dont recall us ever keeping "stable" (i.e. 2.x.y) kernels under one package title and "prerelease" (i.e. 2.x.y-rcZ) kernels under another. our current methodology kind of makes sense anyway : we like the portage upgrade system to always deliver you the latest kernel that you want to run. if we kept 2.6.x-rc releases under a different package, then the users of 2.6.10-rc3 would not get an upgrade until 2.6.11-rc1 came out. (ideally the progression should go 2.6.10-rc3 --> 2.6.10 --> 2.6.11-rc1 without intervention, which it does)
the -rc releases will never be marked stable, you'll only get them if you are using the ~arch (testing) tree. if you stick to the stable tree, you'll never see a 2.6-rc release (note this is exactly the same as development-sources was)
also, vanilla-sources-2.4 has never contained -rc releases. we dont focus as much on 2.4 and we dont currently have the resources to maintain 2.4-rc releases. it is a different scenario with 2.6, hence 2.6-rc releases appearing in the tree

DaNIsH: you are looking for gentoo-sources-2.6

00420: when 2.7/2.8 starts being developed, we'll include it when we think it is usable (or usable for testing purposes). i dont know if we'll give it its own package like we did with 2.6, or if we'll stack it under the already-existing package names. that will be decided when the time comes.

the people that mentioned the package.mask thing: vanilla-sources-2.6 and gentoo-sources-2.6 were masked. we've included 2.6 kernels under this name in the tree for a few months now, but you never noticed because we had them in package.mask! the mask was removed as soon as 2005.0 came out as we then intended the switch to take place - packages.gentoo.org is out of date!

no more development-sources?

no more development-sources?

vanilla-sources good. no development-sources bad!

gentoo-dev-sources ?