<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Ola, thanks for info!<br>
<br>
To make a long story short, I have reverted the build script to
the old versioning<br>
scheme. The next -testing kernel (042stab086.x) will use it, and
the stable kernel<br>
with this old versioning will be released in about a month.<br>
<br>
Kir.<br>
<br>
On 03/12/2014 01:47 PM, Ola Lundqvist wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABY6=0=x01LcXbC=WH1Oai_tN6OrQT8A87kzBak8p0e7ErpTrw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div dir="ltr">Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I can give you some additional feedback on what I think is
the motivation for why the Debian packages was done this way.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) Debian kernels are tested a lot before each release. The
release is done every second year or so and there is a freeze
period of at least a half a year with a lot of testing
involved.</div>
<div>2) The main motivation for this change is probably that the
kernel maintainers do not want to wait for FTP maintainers for
every new version uploaded. If you create a new package in
Debian you have to wait for FTP maintainers approval before it
can reach the archives.</div>
<div>3) There is probably one more motivation and that is the
Debian archive size. It has grown over the years and the
kernel is a quite significant size of it. If every new kernel
is kept for a while that cause a large archive. Keeping the
package name solves this issue.</div>
<div>4) There is one more thing as well. That is that there are
quite a few module packages in debian and they have to be
re-built when the package name is changed. If the name can be
kept (see ABI too below) they do not have to be and that
release some load on the build infrastructure.</div>
<div>5) Still kernel maintainers are aware of ABI compatibility.
This is the reason for the -n part of the version number. It
tells (I guess) the ABI version number for that kernel. As
long as the ABI is still kept the package name can remain.</div>
<div>6) The same thing as in 4) above applies for custom build
kernel modules done by the system administrator. This time it
reduce the work for the system admin to build their custom
modules as ABI compatibility is known by package name.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do not think the error message:<br>
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"Some
packages can not be updated, because they require other</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">packages
that are not installed on your system. You might use</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">apt-get
dist-upgrade to work around that"</span><br
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
</div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">is
something that we should have as an argument. It is not
really an error message, and in some cases it is a good
thing to get an extra reminder that something large is on
the way.</span><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I
agree that the "old scheme" is better in case the kernel is
not that well tested. If it is well tested then it is not
really a problem.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">On
the other hand point 6) above is an argument for the "new
scheme".</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I
do not think point 2), 3) and 4) is something that applies
to the openvz kernels. They should not be a problem.</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kir: But you need to consider point 5 and make sure that
you make a new package name each time the ABI compatibility is
broken.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do not want to vote for either scheme, both are good, but
in different ways.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>// Ola</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Kir
Kolyshkin <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kir@openvz.org" target="_blank">kir@openvz.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>On 03/06/2014 06:13 PM, spameden wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2014-03-07 5:28
GMT+04:00 Kir Kolyshkin <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kir@openvz.org"
target="_blank">kir@openvz.org</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>
<div>On 03/02/2014 02:01 PM, spameden
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2014-03-03
0:38 GMT+04:00 Ola Lundqvist <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ola@inguza.com"
target="_blank">ola@inguza.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Problem fixed now.</div>
<div>I had fixed the problem
temporarily, but I had
forgotten to upgrade to
the debarchiver version
with the fix so it will
not happen again. Now I
have done the upgrade and
fixed the problem
properly.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think it's not fixed
properly:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>1) wrong version of
linux-image:<br>
</div>
<div># dpkg -l|grep
linux-image-openvz<br>
</div>
<div>ii
linux-image-openvz-amd64
042+1
amd64 OpenVZ Linux
kernel (meta-package) <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>2) # ls /boot |grep openvz<br>
config-2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64<br>
<b>config-2.6.32-openvz-amd64</b><br>
initrd.img-2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64<br>
<b>initrd.img-2.6.32-openvz-amd64</b><br>
System.map-2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64<br>
<b>System.map-2.6.32-openvz-amd64</b><br>
vmlinuz-2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64<br>
<b>vmlinuz-2.6.32-openvz-amd64</b><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>so now we are missing usual
version here in the package..
that's actually very bad ...
can you look into it?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>many thanks.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
This is intentional, and I changed it
after looking into how default Debian
kernel is packaged/versioned.<br>
<br>
If you take a look, they have
[meta]package linux-image-amd64 which
requires<br>
package linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64. The
latter (currently) has a version of<br>
3.2.54-2 and this version is changed
(incremented) with every release, while<br>
package name stays the same
(linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64). Also,
vzkernel<br>
name stays the same -- it is
/boot/vmlinuz-3.2.0-4-amd64 in different
versions.<br>
I am using the very same approach now for
OpenVZ kernels.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I understand your position. I checked how
it's done in Debian and yes you're right,
they're using this scheme for their mainline
3.2.0-4 kernel.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Tbh, I don't like their "NEW" way at all.
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is why:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When new version of OpenVZ kernel comes
its hard to have 2 different kernels on the
system (with different versions).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Here is a simple scenario:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>1) new kernel comes and it's not working
at all on certain configurations. <br>
<br>
2) if you configured grub correctly it would
boot previously working kernel after reboot.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--> But it wont boot previous OpenVZ
kernel version, because when you upgrade you
overwrite existing kernel and you need to
rollback to the previous version manually.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Previously I was adding the VZ version
(i.e. 042stab0xy.z) into kernel package
name,<br>
and it was added to vmlinuz and the
/lib/modules directory name as well. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I really liked how it was done before.
There was an option to leave certain kernel
versions for testing as well and delete what
is not needed.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">The
problem<br>
is, you need to specify a different
dependency in linux-image-openvz-amd64
metapackage,<br>
and apt-get upgrade complains that it
can't upgrade the system since a new
version<br>
of an installed package
(linux-image-amd64) requires a package
that is not installed yet.<br>
The problem could be fixed by running
dist-upgrade, but eventually I decided
that<br>
this message is a hint that I package
openvz kernels improperly, that lead me to<br>
looking into a way standard Debian kernels
are packaged and implementing it<br>
the same way for OpenVZ kernels.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Interesting.. I never seen myself such
problem before. It worked just fine for me
for a long time (before there was a problem
with chksums). <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
The error from apt-get update was something like this<br>
(sorry I don't have exact message):<br>
<br>
"Some packages can not be updated, because they require
other<br>
packages that are not installed on your system. You might
use<br>
apt-get dist-upgrade to work around that"<br>
<br>
So I started to look why this is not happening with stock
Debian kernels<br>
and found out that I was doing it all wrong (or so I
thought at that time).<br>
<br>
We can surely revert back to the old packaging scheme...
<div class=""><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
I am not a Debian guru and am very open to
suggestions on how to improve this.<br>
Perhaps we can return to the older
versioning scheme and ask people to use
dist-upgrade.<br>
Or maybe I am totally missing something.
Please help.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, old way was really cool and convinient
personally for me on production environment.
And for testing new stable kernel versions
too.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Of course there is a drawback that you need
to cleanup old kernel versions manually, cuz
your /boot partition must have some free space
for future upgrades.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>If OpenVZ kernels are very well tested
before going to stable versions I wouldnt mind
NEW way. It's probably more proper to have
just 1 OpenVZ kernel version and update it
from time to time..<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
This is what we do with stable kernels -- they are
released about once a month,<br>
and we test a lot before releasing those. But yeah, maybe
we should just revert<br>
back to the old scheme.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace" size="1"> ---
Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology
----</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace" size="1">/ <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ola@inguza.com"
target="_blank">ola@inguza.com</a>
Annebergsslingan 37 \</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace" size="1">| <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:opal@debian.org"
target="_blank">opal@debian.org</a>
654 65 KARLSTAD |</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace" size="1">| <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://inguza.com/"
target="_blank">http://inguza.com/</a>
Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace" size="1">\
gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5
3DD9 /</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace" size="1"> ---------------------------------------------------------------</font></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>