Re: RFC: Changes to meta-kernel layer


Bas Mevissen
 

On 2020-09-17 10:43, Paul Barker wrote:

Hi folks,
After a bit of a break I'm looking again at the meta-kernel layer and I've got some changes planned. I'd like to get some feedback on these from anyone who has looked at or used the meta-kernel layer.
1) Change the name to meta-vanilla-kernel. This reflects the focus on providing a fast moving layer for vanilla kernel recipes, covering only what is available on kernel.org. Other common kernel recipes (e.g. Linaro or Android common kernels) will no longer be considered for acceptance into this layer. This clear focus should hopefully reduce some of the confusion about the goals of this layer.
I would suggest calling it something like meta-kernel.org then. Naming something "vanilla" might cause confusion as well.

2) The dunfell branch will no longer get new non-LTS kernel recipes. Providing non-LTS recipes on a stable branch has led to people depending on kernels which are now out of their support period - I'd like to drop the recipes for the 5.3.y and 5.6.y kernels but users are depending on them so I'll have to keep them. To avoid this proliferating, only LTS kernels and the bleeding edge mainline recipe will be updated on the stable branch from now on.
I would recommend maintaining a "kernel-stable" moving target recipe that tracks the latest stable version of kernel.org. This is of use for people needing a very recent kernel, while needing a stable environment for the rest of the system (so where master is no option).

3) Aggressively drop end-of-life kernels on the master branch.
Always good to keep the amount of kernels at an absolut minimum to limit the amount of testing and maintenance.

4) Drop all non-LTS kernel recipes in the gatesgarth branch when it is created.
See 2); additionally the next-to-be-lts might be considered

5) Document the test coverage for meta-kernel. We don't test perf, lttng or any out-of-tree modules. This layer isn't meant to replace the linux-yocto recipes, the goals are different. If you're releasing products based on meta-kernel you obviously need to do your own testing on the components you're actually using.
6) Document the policy for kernel patches. Patches for the kernel will only be carried in this layer as a last resort. Kernel patches should be submitted upstream and go through the usual process for inclusion in the stable kernel releases.
7) Disable GitLab CI for this layer. It's costing me about £70 per month to run CI for this layer and I need to eliminate that expense. If anyone can sponsor this or host the CI service that would be welcome.
8) Add Jon Mason and Ross Burton (both at ARM) as backup maintainers to reduce the bus factor for the layer. I'll continue to be the primary maintainer for this layer but this will give some coverage if I'm unable to continue working on it.
And spreading the workload of course!

Thanks,
--
Paul Barker
Konsulko Group
Regards,

Bas.

Join yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.