[meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[Fathi Boudra]

The include content hasn't changed since February 2020 and has been only
renamed since to be tightly coupled with oe-core linux-yocto kernel
version.
It's causing unecessary breakage for layers tracking meta-virtualization
master branch layer (for CI purpose for example) and haven't updated to
latest kernel.
This commit relax the strict versioning requirement and allows the users
to have a bit more time to fix thier layers.
e.g. layers still using 6.5 kernel and haven't migrated to 6.6 are
unblocked.

Signed-off-by: Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org>
---
 ..._6.6_virtualization.inc => linux-yocto_6.%_virtualization.inc} | 0
 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 rename recipes-kernel/linux/{linux-yocto_6.6_virtualization.inc => linux-yocto_6.%_virtualization.inc} (100%)

diff --git a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.6_virtualization.inc b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.%_virtualization.inc
similarity index 100%
rename from recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.6_virtualization.inc
rename to recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.%_virtualization.inc
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[Bruce Ashfield]

Unfortunately, no. I've already rejected similar patches in the past.

The specific versioning is intentional and is going to stay. It tracks
what is supported and tested in a given branch.

If someone needs to deviate from what I'm marking as tested, they can
carry a file in their layers.

Bruce

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:20 AM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> The include content hasn't changed since February 2020 and has been only
> renamed since to be tightly coupled with oe-core linux-yocto kernel
> version.
> It's causing unecessary breakage for layers tracking meta-virtualization
> master branch layer (for CI purpose for example) and haven't updated to
> latest kernel.
> This commit relax the strict versioning requirement and allows the users
> to have a bit more time to fix thier layers.
> e.g. layers still using 6.5 kernel and haven't migrated to 6.6 are
> unblocked.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org>
> ---
>  ..._6.6_virtualization.inc => linux-yocto_6.%_virtualization.inc} | 0
>  1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  rename recipes-kernel/linux/{linux-yocto_6.6_virtualization.inc => linux-yocto_6.%_virtualization.inc} (100%)
>
> diff --git a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.6_virtualization.inc b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.%_virtualization.inc
> similarity index 100%
> rename from recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.6_virtualization.inc
> rename to recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.%_virtualization.inc
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#8572): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-virtualization/message/8572
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/104511325/1050810
> Group Owner: meta-virtualization+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-virtualization/unsub [bruce.ashfield@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>


-- 
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II

Re: [meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[Fathi Boudra]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:10, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, no. I've already rejected similar patches in the past.
>
> The specific versioning is intentional and is going to stay. It tracks
> what is supported and tested in a given branch.
>
> If someone needs to deviate from what I'm marking as tested, they can
> carry a file in their layers.

That's unfortunate. Let's all carry a workaround for this one-liner
that hasn't changed in 4 years.

-  <project path="meta-virtualization" name="meta-virtualization"/>
+  <project path="meta-virtualization" name="meta-virtualization" >
+     <copyfile
src="recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.6_virtualization.inc"
dest="meta-virtualization/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_%_virtualization.inc"
/>
+  </project>

Re: [meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:16 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:10, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, no. I've already rejected similar patches in the past.
> >
> > The specific versioning is intentional and is going to stay. It tracks
> > what is supported and tested in a given branch.
> >
> > If someone needs to deviate from what I'm marking as tested, they can
> > carry a file in their layers.
>
> That's unfortunate. Let's all carry a workaround for this one-liner
> that hasn't changed in 4 years.
>

I'm not sure what you are implying, but I am constantly changing the
versioned linux-yocto .inc file to match the upstream file.

Which is exactly the point of that file, not the contents within the
file.

Bruce

> -  <project path="meta-virtualization" name="meta-virtualization"/>
> +  <project path="meta-virtualization" name="meta-virtualization" >
> +     <copyfile
> src="recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_6.6_virtualization.inc"
> dest="meta-virtualization/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_%_virtualization.inc"
> />
> +  </project>



-- 
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II

Re: [meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[Fathi Boudra]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:19, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:16 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:10, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, no. I've already rejected similar patches in the past.
> > >
> > > The specific versioning is intentional and is going to stay. It tracks
> > > what is supported and tested in a given branch.
> > >
> > > If someone needs to deviate from what I'm marking as tested, they can
> > > carry a file in their layers.
> >
> > That's unfortunate. Let's all carry a workaround for this one-liner
> > that hasn't changed in 4 years.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you are implying, but I am constantly changing the
> versioned linux-yocto .inc file to match the upstream file.
>
> Which is exactly the point of that file, not the contents within the
> file.

Let's be clear, as you mentioned, you've rejected similar patches in the past.
There's real users affected by this strict versioning and causing
unnecessary breakage.
Hence, I'm assuming that other users are or have been impacted and
carry a workaround.
Relaxing the versioned include doesn't change what you've been
testing, as it's pretty
clear it is whatever is supported by oe-core. It's unfortunate because the
linux-%.bbappend is relaxed.

Re: [meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:37 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:19, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:16 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:10, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, no. I've already rejected similar patches in the past.
> > > >
> > > > The specific versioning is intentional and is going to stay. It tracks
> > > > what is supported and tested in a given branch.
> > > >
> > > > If someone needs to deviate from what I'm marking as tested, they can
> > > > carry a file in their layers.
> > >
> > > That's unfortunate. Let's all carry a workaround for this one-liner
> > > that hasn't changed in 4 years.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are implying, but I am constantly changing the
> > versioned linux-yocto .inc file to match the upstream file.
> >
> > Which is exactly the point of that file, not the contents within the
> > file.
>
> Let's be clear, as you mentioned, you've rejected similar patches in the past.
> There's real users affected by this strict versioning and causing
> unnecessary breakage.

And let's be clear that I'm not going to trade off a few users
carrying a small tweak to their local configs / layers if they
want to support a different set of versions than I'm testing,
with even a single user thinking that the support is extended
to anything more than the versions in oe-core.  It has to be
enforced through the layer, not documentation or what people
think they know.

> Hence, I'm assuming that other users are or have been impacted and
> carry a workaround.
> Relaxing the versioned include doesn't change what you've been
> testing, as it's pretty
> clear it is whatever is supported by oe-core. It's unfortunate because the
> linux-%.bbappend is relaxed.

git contains all the history, it was a compromise from the start to
allow other kernels of the same version, that don't happen to be
linux-yocto to work. We went through quite a few iterations to get
it to work, and I often do wish we had just kept the matching more
strict.

Bruce




-- 
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II

Re: [meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[Fathi Boudra]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:52, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:37 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:19, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:16 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:10, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, no. I've already rejected similar patches in the past.
> > > > >
> > > > > The specific versioning is intentional and is going to stay. It tracks
> > > > > what is supported and tested in a given branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > If someone needs to deviate from what I'm marking as tested, they can
> > > > > carry a file in their layers.
> > > >
> > > > That's unfortunate. Let's all carry a workaround for this one-liner
> > > > that hasn't changed in 4 years.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you are implying, but I am constantly changing the
> > > versioned linux-yocto .inc file to match the upstream file.
> > >
> > > Which is exactly the point of that file, not the contents within the
> > > file.
> >
> > Let's be clear, as you mentioned, you've rejected similar patches in the past.
> > There's real users affected by this strict versioning and causing
> > unnecessary breakage.
>
> And let's be clear that I'm not going to trade off a few users
> carrying a small tweak to their local configs / layers if they
> want to support a different set of versions than I'm testing,
> with even a single user thinking that the support is extended
> to anything more than the versions in oe-core.  It has to be
> enforced through the layer, not documentation or what people
> think they know.

You have no clue about how many users are affected.

> > Hence, I'm assuming that other users are or have been impacted and
> > carry a workaround.
> > Relaxing the versioned include doesn't change what you've been
> > testing, as it's pretty
> > clear it is whatever is supported by oe-core. It's unfortunate because the
> > linux-%.bbappend is relaxed.
>
> git contains all the history, it was a compromise from the start to
> allow other kernels of the same version, that don't happen to be
> linux-yocto to work. We went through quite a few iterations to get
> it to work, and I often do wish we had just kept the matching more
> strict.

Sorry, I don't see any compromises in the git history.

Re: [meta-virtualization][PATCH] linux-yocto: include: relax the versioned linux-yocto_*_virtualization.inc

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:59 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:52, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:37 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:19, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:16 PM Fathi Boudra <fathi.boudra@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:10, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, no. I've already rejected similar patches in the past.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The specific versioning is intentional and is going to stay. It tracks
> > > > > > what is supported and tested in a given branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If someone needs to deviate from what I'm marking as tested, they can
> > > > > > carry a file in their layers.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's unfortunate. Let's all carry a workaround for this one-liner
> > > > > that hasn't changed in 4 years.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you are implying, but I am constantly changing the
> > > > versioned linux-yocto .inc file to match the upstream file.
> > > >
> > > > Which is exactly the point of that file, not the contents within the
> > > > file.
> > >
> > > Let's be clear, as you mentioned, you've rejected similar patches in the past.
> > > There's real users affected by this strict versioning and causing
> > > unnecessary breakage.
> >
> > And let's be clear that I'm not going to trade off a few users
> > carrying a small tweak to their local configs / layers if they
> > want to support a different set of versions than I'm testing,
> > with even a single user thinking that the support is extended
> > to anything more than the versions in oe-core.  It has to be
> > enforced through the layer, not documentation or what people
> > think they know.
>
> You have no clue about how many users are affected.

And you have no idea about what I do, or don't know.

This conversation is over as it is no longer even remotely productive.

Bruce

>
> > > Hence, I'm assuming that other users are or have been impacted and
> > > carry a workaround.
> > > Relaxing the versioned include doesn't change what you've been
> > > testing, as it's pretty
> > > clear it is whatever is supported by oe-core. It's unfortunate because the
> > > linux-%.bbappend is relaxed.
> >
> > git contains all the history, it was a compromise from the start to
> > allow other kernels of the same version, that don't happen to be
> > linux-yocto to work. We went through quite a few iterations to get
> > it to work, and I often do wish we had just kept the matching more
> > strict.
>
> Sorry, I don't see any compromises in the git history.



-- 
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II