RFC: systemd version - release or git?

RFC: systemd version - release or git?

[Richard Purdie]

As anyone looking at the autobuidler will know, we've been having a lot
of issues with instability with systemd tests under qemu.

I believe these are real world issues, most likely races in systemd
itself.

The last release of systemd, 208 was five months ago. There have been a
ton of changes since including many bug fixes.

Fedora 20 uses systemd 208 (the last release) with 200+ patches on top.

I'm therefore wondering if we shouldn't bite the bullet and add a git
recipe rather than trying to patch 208 into some form of life.

The proposal is therefore to add a more recent git recipe and make that
the default.

I have such a patch in master-next. I've debugged the toolchain issues,
missing kernel config and other issues with systemd master, it always
now seems to pass the autobuilder tests. I need to check on one
remaining automated QA test result to ensure its not a regression in
systemd.

Any objections to defaulting to a git version?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: RFC: systemd version - release or git?

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:54:50AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> As anyone looking at the autobuidler will know, we've been having a lot
> of issues with instability with systemd tests under qemu.
> 
> I believe these are real world issues, most likely races in systemd
> itself.
> 
> The last release of systemd, 208 was five months ago. There have been a
> ton of changes since including many bug fixes.
> 
> Fedora 20 uses systemd 208 (the last release) with 200+ patches on top.
> 
> I'm therefore wondering if we shouldn't bite the bullet and add a git
> recipe rather than trying to patch 208 into some form of life.
> 
> The proposal is therefore to add a more recent git recipe and make that
> the default.
> 
> I have such a patch in master-next. I've debugged the toolchain issues,
> missing kernel config and other issues with systemd master, it always
> now seems to pass the autobuilder tests. I need to check on one
> remaining automated QA test result to ensure its not a regression in
> systemd.
> 
> Any objections to defaulting to a git version?

I think we can wait few more days for new release:
https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg16738.html

but otherwise I don't have strong objections for switching to git
version temporary (if it really makes QA test results better).

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: RFC: systemd version - release or git?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 19 feb. 2014, om 11:54 heeft Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:

> As anyone looking at the autobuidler will know, we've been having a lot
> of issues with instability with systemd tests under qemu.

A number of those were (are?) caused by kernel config issues, like CONFIG_FHANDLE missing, have those been addressed? 

> I believe these are real world issues, most likely races in systemd
> itself.
> 
> The last release of systemd, 208 was five months ago. There have been a
> ton of changes since including many bug fixes.
> 
> Fedora 20 uses systemd 208 (the last release) with 200+ patches on top.
> 
> I'm therefore wondering if we shouldn't bite the bullet and add a git
> recipe rather than trying to patch 208 into some form of life.
> 
> The proposal is therefore to add a more recent git recipe and make that
> the default.
> 
> I have such a patch in master-next. I've debugged the toolchain issues,
> missing kernel config and other issues with systemd master, it always
> now seems to pass the autobuilder tests. I need to check on one
> remaining automated QA test result to ensure its not a regression in
> systemd.
> 
> Any objections to defaulting to a git version?

In meta-oe we used to build systemd from a git tag instead of tarball release and ran into the usual gtk-doc and docbook problems. Can you build systemd git without docbook dtds installed on the buildhost?

If the docbook issues have been fixed I have no objection to adding a git recipe. I poked Lennart at FOSDEM about v209 and he said they need to fix some issues in kdbus and networkd first before making a release, "hopefully soon".

Speaking of networkd, any idea if our connman is recent enough to support networkd -> connman handover?

regards,

Koen

Re: RFC: systemd version - release or git?

[Anders Darander]

* Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> [140219 12:26]:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:54:50AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > Any objections to defaulting to a git version?

> I think we can wait few more days for new release:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg16738.html

I was just about to reply with the same e-mail link...

> but otherwise I don't have strong objections for switching to git
> version temporary (if it really makes QA test results better).

Otherwise, I don't have any strong feelings against a git version. Not
as long as it works as it should.

One objection might be that it's easier for someone to update it to a
strange version in between the regular releases. As long as we try to
avoid making a release where systemd is too far of from a regular
release, that shouldn't be any issue, though.

Cheers,
Anders

-- 
Anders Darander
ChargeStorm AB / eStorm AB

Re: RFC: systemd version - release or git?

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 12:37 +0100, Anders Darander wrote:
> * Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> [140219 12:26]:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:54:50AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > Any objections to defaulting to a git version?
> 
> > I think we can wait few more days for new release:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg16738.html
> 
> I was just about to reply with the same e-mail link...

I asked about this a few days ago and scanned the archives and didn't
find it. Typically, they sent it out after I did that :)

> > but otherwise I don't have strong objections for switching to git
> > version temporary (if it really makes QA test results better).
> 
> Otherwise, I don't have any strong feelings against a git version. Not
> as long as it works as it should.
> 
> One objection might be that it's easier for someone to update it to a
> strange version in between the regular releases. As long as we try to
> avoid making a release where systemd is too far of from a regular
> release, that shouldn't be any issue, though.

I agree its worth waiting for the release if it really is than imminent.
I'd previously not been able to find a commitment or schedule.

It might be useful to have a git based recipe anyway for
debugging/testing...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: RFC: systemd version - release or git?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 19 feb. 2014, om 16:47 heeft Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 12:37 +0100, Anders Darander wrote:
>> * Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> [140219 12:26]:
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:54:50AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>> Any objections to defaulting to a git version?
>> 
>>> I think we can wait few more days for new release:
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg16738.html
>> 
>> I was just about to reply with the same e-mail link...
> 
> I asked about this a few days ago and scanned the archives and didn't
> find it. Typically, they sent it out after I did that :)

And it has been released!

> 
>>> but otherwise I don't have strong objections for switching to git
>>> version temporary (if it really makes QA test results better).
>> 
>> Otherwise, I don't have any strong feelings against a git version. Not
>> as long as it works as it should.
>> 
>> One objection might be that it's easier for someone to update it to a
>> strange version in between the regular releases. As long as we try to
>> avoid making a release where systemd is too far of from a regular
>> release, that shouldn't be any issue, though.
> 
> I agree its worth waiting for the release if it really is than imminent.
> I'd previously not been able to find a commitment or schedule.
> 
> It might be useful to have a git based recipe anyway for
> debugging/testing...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>