Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Building package for linux headers #1684

Closed
mmriech opened this issue Dec 19, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Building package for linux headers #1684

mmriech opened this issue Dec 19, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@mmriech
Copy link
Contributor

mmriech commented Dec 19, 2019

As I'm currently trying to understand why DKMS does not work with recent kernels I had a look on the creation of the package for the linux headers. Some issues came up I would like to discuss.

  1. First of all a "concrete" finding: The postinst-script. The builddeb-script of the kernel is patched in a way that is automatically creates a postinst-script that is executed after the header-package is installed One of its task is displaying "Compiling headers - please wait ..." but there is also some work done in the background. Unfortunately the output of the commands that are executed are discarded: >/dev/null 2>&1 This is useful to reduce noise, but it completely hides error output. Is this indended?

  2. And then a more general finding/question: The header package does not have any dependencies. This is quite problematic when installing the headers on a minimal system. Installing the headers requires make. If it is not available the postinst-script cannot be executed successfully. But unfortunately due to issue (1) this is hidden. And make is not enough. Recent kernels also require tools like flex, bison and libssl-dev. They are all not automatically installed by the kernel headers due to the missing dependencies. Debian's own kernel headers, like for amd64, have quite a lot of dependencies. I assume they cover all tools required to use the kernel headers. Shouldn't Armbian do it the same way or has there been a decision to handle the dependencies somehow else?

@igorpecovnik
Copy link
Member

igorpecovnik commented Dec 19, 2019

Shouldn't Armbian do it the same way or has there been a decision to handle the dependencies somehow else?

There was not special decisions ... more like a natural development + avoiding to deal with scattered patches on a kernel which are going to be dropped anyway ... and create some better solution.

Our challenges: 10+ different kernel sources, many of them from dirty development drops, up to two arch. Each needed some adjustments to provide the same packaging structure ... Debian packaging way was just a template and 10y old is very different than the actual one.

Today we have only a few patches https://github.com/armbian/build/tree/master/patch/misc and much less kernel sources (we recently dropped all old junk) which means its much simpler to get a picture what can be done. I already made a plan to do something about to make this part even better AR-42

Once we only have one script to maintain ... its much easier to address problems you are bringing up - solve dependencies and logging properly ...

@mmriech
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmriech commented Dec 27, 2019

Closing this issue. Pull request #1679 is going to add the dependencies to the currently supported kernels.

@Heisath
Copy link
Member

Heisath commented Dec 28, 2019

Is this and the PR related to #1369 ?
Seems like the same to me.

@igorpecovnik
Copy link
Member

Yes, its the same.

@mmriech mmriech closed this as completed Dec 28, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants