FS#25254 - [linux] include userspace tools into build

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Sergej Pupykin (sergej) - Monday, 25 July 2011, 12:46 GMT
Last edited by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Saturday, 10 December 2011, 20:14 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Testing
Status Closed
Assigned To Tobias Powalowski (tpowa)
Thomas Bächler (brain0)
Architecture All
Severity Very Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 7
Private No

Details

Consider including of userspace tools (such as https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50926, tools/power/x86/*, etc) from linux kernel sources into packaging.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Ionut Biru (wonder)
Saturday, 10 December 2011, 20:14 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  perf and cpupower are in community
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Monday, 25 July 2011, 13:06 GMT
Is there really a demand for its inclusion given it only has two votes in the AUR?
Comment by Sergej Pupykin (sergej) - Monday, 25 July 2011, 13:26 GMT
This package 3 days old. Its sources is part of kernel tarball and it looks usefull as well as power tools.
Comment by Jelle van der Waa (jelly) - Tuesday, 26 July 2011, 10:00 GMT
Perf is pretty usefull, not sure about the other tools
Comment by Mad Fish (MadFish) - Tuesday, 26 July 2011, 10:53 GMT
Allan, what was the point of closing this request: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/25248, and keeping this one, if the request is basically the same?
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 09:48 GMT
I was being nice not closing this one too... Someone can decide this time.
Comment by Mad Fish (MadFish) - Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 09:51 GMT
IMO, this is a perfectly valid feature request for package "linux". I don't see any reason for closing.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 09:55 GMT
The needed dependencies would be a very valid reason. What is the real disadvantage of a separate package?
Comment by Mad Fish (MadFish) - Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 10:03 GMT
It may be built as a split package -> will result in a separate package, something like linux-tools (like linux-headers and linux-docs currently). With separate dependencies.
It is a good candidate for a split package, because it's building from the same source tree.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Thursday, 28 July 2011, 09:49 GMT
That still pulls all those dependencies into [core] as split packages can not go across repos.
Comment by Mad Fish (MadFish) - Friday, 29 July 2011, 14:35 GMT
Allan, why they cannot go across repos? makepkg will produce N package archives. Upload one to [core], another to [extra], what is the problem?
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Saturday, 30 July 2011, 01:01 GMT
Our repo management scripts do not support that and there has been no progress in supporting it in the years since makepkg could make split packages...
Comment by Jelle van der Waa (jelly) - Saturday, 30 July 2011, 08:41 GMT
This is a rather good argument, which I totally was unaware of. Perf would be nice in the repos, but not in [core]
Comment by Mad Fish (MadFish) - Sunday, 07 August 2011, 19:52 GMT
This may sound crazy, but I would suggest dropping repo separation to remove artificial limits, and to Keep It Simple. We even have a single [testing] for both [core] and [extra], which is also a signal that something is wrong.
Comment by Sébastien Luttringer (seblu) - Tuesday, 29 November 2011, 10:12 GMT
i moved perf and cpupower to community last night. I think i will merge source packages in a near future.

Loading...