[RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

Hi,

I'm in the process of upgrading the sheevaplug kernel to 2.6.36. I
noticed the current version of 2.6.36 is at patch 1 but 2.6.36.2 is
already out.
Guess this needs some coordination with the other users. Currently the
recipe says:

DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_mx31ads = "1"
DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_ts72xx = "1"

Seems Petr, Eric and Robert are involved in these two machines.
Care to comment on moving to 2.6.36.2 (or give it a stab)?

Frans.

Re: [RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Otavio Salvador]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 19:12, Frans Meulenbroeks
<fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems Petr, Eric and Robert are involved in these two machines.
> Care to comment on moving to 2.6.36.2 (or give it a stab)?

I am using 2.6.36 and I support the update.

You might do it and post the patch for testing so the affected people
could comment on it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia wtorek, 4 stycznia 2011 o 22:12:29 Frans Meulenbroeks napisał(a):
> Hi,
> 
> I'm in the process of upgrading the sheevaplug kernel to 2.6.36. I
> noticed the current version of 2.6.36 is at patch 1 but 2.6.36.2 is
> already out.
> Guess this needs some coordination with the other users. Currently the
> recipe says:
> 
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_mx31ads = "1"
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_ts72xx = "1"
> 
> Seems Petr, Eric and Robert are involved in these two machines.
> Care to comment on moving to 2.6.36.2 (or give it a stab)?

Long time ago (July 2009) I had similar RFC. In October 2009 I did mass update 
for all versions.

I think that stable kernel updates should be applied without asking - but if 
there are some patches for some machines in recipe then it needs to be checked 
does it patch/build before pushing update.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: [RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/1/5 Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl>:
> Dnia wtorek, 4 stycznia 2011 o 22:12:29 Frans Meulenbroeks napisał(a):
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm in the process of upgrading the sheevaplug kernel to 2.6.36. I
>> noticed the current version of 2.6.36 is at patch 1 but 2.6.36.2 is
>> already out.
>> Guess this needs some coordination with the other users. Currently the
>> recipe says:
>>
>> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
>> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_mx31ads = "1"
>> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_ts72xx = "1"
>>
>> Seems Petr, Eric and Robert are involved in these two machines.
>> Care to comment on moving to 2.6.36.2 (or give it a stab)?
>
> Long time ago (July 2009) I had similar RFC. In October 2009 I did mass update
> for all versions.
>
> I think that stable kernel updates should be applied without asking - but if
> there are some patches for some machines in recipe then it needs to be checked
> does it patch/build before pushing update.

There are. Both systems mentioned above have patches.
I've no idea if they will remain to apply after moving to .2. Of
course I can verify that, but if they fail I am not too sure if I can
fix things.
They are machines that I do not have.

Thinking of it, probably it is better to create a 2.6.36.2 recipe with
DP = -1 for all but my board and leave it to the mx31ads and ts72xx
machines to move to that recipe when they see fit.

Frans.

Re: [RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia środa, 5 stycznia 2011 o 14:51:35 Frans Meulenbroeks napisał(a):
> > I think that stable kernel updates should be applied without asking - but
> > if there are some patches for some machines in recipe then it needs to
> > be checked does it patch/build before pushing update.
 
> There are. Both systems mentioned above have patches.
> I've no idea if they will remain to apply after moving to .2. Of
> course I can verify that, but if they fail I am not too sure if I can
> fix things. They are machines that I do not have.

for mach in machine1 machine2;do MACHINE=$mach bitbake -b linux_2.6.36.bb -
cpatch;done

This will test does patches apply. If they are then push change, if they not 
then check why - maybe they contain patches from stable update (edit them 
then).
 
> Thinking of it, probably it is better to create a 2.6.36.2 recipe with
> DP = -1 for all but my board and leave it to the mx31ads and ts72xx
> machines to move to that recipe when they see fit.

Why not linux-yourmachine_2.6.36.2.bb then? linux_BASE_VER.bb recipes were 
created to limit amount of kernel recipes, not to enlarge it.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: [RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/1/5 Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl>:
> Dnia środa, 5 stycznia 2011 o 14:51:35 Frans Meulenbroeks napisał(a):
>> > I think that stable kernel updates should be applied without asking - but
>> > if there are some patches for some machines in recipe then it needs to
>> > be checked does it patch/build before pushing update.
>
>> There are. Both systems mentioned above have patches.
>> I've no idea if they will remain to apply after moving to .2. Of
>> course I can verify that, but if they fail I am not too sure if I can
>> fix things. They are machines that I do not have.
>
> for mach in machine1 machine2;do MACHINE=$mach bitbake -b linux_2.6.36.bb -
> cpatch;done
>
> This will test does patches apply. If they are then push change, if they not
> then check why - maybe they contain patches from stable update (edit them
> then)>
>> Thinking of it, probably it is better to create a 2.6.36.2 recipe with
>> DP = -1 for all but my board and leave it to the mx31ads and ts72xx
>> machines to move to that recipe when they see fit.
>
> Why not linux-yourmachine_2.6.36.2.bb then? linux_BASE_VER.bb recipes were
> created to limit amount of kernel recipes, not to enlarge it.

linux-yourmachine_2.6.36.2.bb also enlarges the number of recipes.
And as a policy we could decide to phase out e.g. 2.6.32.1 after a while.

Anyway, the topic is moot as I saw that today 2.6.37 was released so
since I have to take a leap anyway, I'll probably go to that version.

Frans.

Re: [RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Eric Bénard]

Hi Frans,

On 04/01/2011 22:12, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> I'm in the process of upgrading the sheevaplug kernel to 2.6.36. I
> noticed the current version of 2.6.36 is at patch 1 but 2.6.36.2 is
> already out.
> Guess this needs some coordination with the other users. Currently the
> recipe says:
>
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_mx31ads = "1"
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_ts72xx = "1"
>
> Seems Petr, Eric and Robert are involved in these two machines.
> Care to comment on moving to 2.6.36.2 (or give it a stab)?
>
no problem for me, (I only use mx31ads for compile testing for armv6 so I will 
tell you if that still compiles next week ;-)).

Eric

Re: [RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Petr Štetiar]

Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> [2011-01-04 22:12:29]:

> Seems Petr, Eric and Robert are involved in these two machines.
> Care to comment on moving to 2.6.36.2 (or give it a stab)?

Hi,

thank you for asking, you've my ack. I just wonder, if it's necessary to ask
the maintainers of other machines using this kernel recipe for such small
kernel patchlevel bump.

-- ynezz

Re: [RFC] linux 2.6.36: upgrade to 2.6.36.2

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/1/7 Petr Štetiar <ynezz@true.cz>:
> Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> [2011-01-04 22:12:29]:
>
>> Seems Petr, Eric and Robert are involved in these two machines.
>> Care to comment on moving to 2.6.36.2 (or give it a stab)?
>
> Hi,
>
> thank you for asking, you've my ack. I just wonder, if it's necessary to ask
> the maintainers of other machines using this kernel recipe for such small
> kernel patchlevel bump.
>
> -- ynezz

Reason for asking was that at least one of the machines had quite some
patches in it.
Anyway, as stated before I decided to move sheeva to 2.6.37 instead,
so I'll leave doing to patch to someone more involved.

Frans