I see that this dependency is persisting in the new BPO release of
linux-headers 6.7.12, and it still causes significant trouble for me on my
build system.
I still can't understand what problem it's supposed to be fixing. Was there
ever an original bug report indicating the issue?
Colm
--
Colm B
On the other hand, though - creating this dependency *will* break workflows
and cause many unexpected side-effects, as it broke mine last month: I have
linux-headers-cloud-amd64 installed; when this package hit BPO, it brought
in linux-image-cloud-amd64, which grub then tracked as the most recent
k
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 16:52, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 03:59:25PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Let's look at this the other way around: if there was no dependency, in
> > what scenario would things break and how?
>
> - linux-headers-bla and linux-image-bla are installed
>
Hi
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 03:26:32PM +, Colm Buckley wrote:
> This is a real problem - however I think it is *not* one which the change
> in dependency addresses; even if -headers-Y depends on -image-Y, step 3
> above will proceed without any conflicts (because the reverse dependency is
> not
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 03:59:25PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Let's look at this the other way around: if there was no dependency, in
> what scenario would things break and how?
- linux-headers-bla and linux-image-bla are installed
- linux-image-bla is uipgraded
- no modules will be built, beca
I wrote:
[...] From the maintainer's most recent comments, I believe that the
> problem is something like:
>
> * user has installed linux-headers and linux-image for kernel version X
> * user has built additional modules using DKMS which are installed into
> the running system
> * user upgrades li
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 08:27:39 +0200 Bastian Blank
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 09:25:40PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Why do dkms modules need the image installed to be built? At the
very
> > least they didn't use to, the headers were enough last time I had
to
> > deal with that stuff for th
ventually
arrived in bookworm-backports around the end of February 2024, with the
promotion of the package linux-headers-6.6.13+bpo-amd64 (and others) to
backports. I immediately noticed the impact on my build server, and
submitted a bug report (
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064976
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 09:25:40PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Why do dkms modules need the image installed to be built? At the very
> least they didn't use to, the headers were enough last time I had to
> deal with that stuff for the nvidia drivers
dkms is used to build modules for the kernel t
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 21:49, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> Control: tags -1 wontfix
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:38:12PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF case
> > > shoul
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 08:39:06PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> No. We need to make sure someone installing linux-image-bla and
> linux-headers-bla have the same version, so the modules are compatible.
Revisiting this bug, I might have been not explicit enough. This
dependency is n
Control: tags -1 wontfix
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:38:12PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF case
> > should be covered.
As said, this dependency is to make sure kernel m
Control: tags -1 patch
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:32:16 + Colm Buckley
wrote:
> Package: linux-headers-amd64
> Version: 6.6.13-1~bpo12+1
> Followup-For: Bug #1064976
> X-Debbugs-Cc: c...@tuatha.org
>
> Can I suggest in the interim that Depends: be replaced with
Recommends:
&g
Package: linux-headers-amd64
Version: 6.6.13-1~bpo12+1
Followup-For: Bug #1064976
X-Debbugs-Cc: c...@tuatha.org
Can I suggest in the interim that Depends: be replaced with Recommends:
or Suggests: given that most installations won't actually need the image
package?
Colm
Hey folks -
I see that linux-headers-* has been promoted to 6.6 in the BPO channel, but
this dependency is still in place.
Is it really the case that we want to drag in the image binaries and other
machinery as a dependency for a source package like linux-headers.
I feel that the BPF use case shou
I am assuming that the original intent of adding linux-image-* as a
dependency was to prevent the "Skipping BTF generation for %s due to
unavailability of vmlinux" warning from being printed; is that a fair
assumption?
I am quite sure that this will not cause problems because of the decision
in ht
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:54:49 +0100 Bastian Blank
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:28:12AM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > But we where talking about kernel modules.
> > There are kernel modules using BPF stuff? Never seen one, do you
have
> > an example?
>
> No idea, but they get linked BTF i
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:28:12AM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > But we where talking about kernel modules.
> There are kernel modules using BPF stuff? Never seen one, do you have
> an example?
No idea, but they get linked BTF information, so you could use them.
Bastian
--
Those who hate and
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:32, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:40:07AM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Yes precisely, the bpf program source can just include vmlinux.h and it
> > should build and run as expected.
>
> But we where talking about kernel modules.
>
> Bastian
There a
On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 12:40:07AM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Yes precisely, the bpf program source can just include vmlinux.h and it
> should build and run as expected.
But we where talking about kernel modules.
Bastian
--
Vulcans never bluff.
-- Spock, "The Doomsday Machine
As per the discussion in
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1005 - once
vmlinux.h is included with linux-headers, the warning about cmd_btf_ko etc.
should be harmless, as that file should already be available (ie: there's
no need to generate it again as part of kernel build
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:23:05 + Colm Buckley
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:38:12 +0100 Bastian Blank
wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF
case
> > > should be covered.
> >
> > The releva
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:38:12 +0100 Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF case
> > should be covered.
>
> The relevant code in Linux is:
>
> | quiet_cmd_btf_ko = BTF [M] $@
> | c
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:12:21PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> With the new vmlinux.h shipped in the headers package, the BTF case
> should be covered.
The relevant code in Linux is:
| quiet_cmd_btf_ko = BTF [M] $@
| cmd_btf_ko = \
|
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:25:27 +0100 Bastian Blank
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:03:11AM +, Colm Buckley wrote:
> > Why was this never the case before? And can you be more precise
about what
> > "stuff" is missing? Is there a previous bug report I can reference?
>
> It complains loudly ab
> The build wants the image available (it does not really fail without, but
lacks stuff) and we need some dependency to keep image and headers in sync
for people using dkms.
To be honest, "it does not really fail without, but lacks stuff" seems like
the use case that "Recommends:" (or even "Sugges
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:03:11AM +, Colm Buckley wrote:
> Why was this never the case before? And can you be more precise about what
> "stuff" is missing? Is there a previous bug report I can reference?
It complains loudly about BTF.
> DKMS should handle its own dependencies, I'd have thoug
Why was this never the case before? And can you be more precise about what
"stuff" is missing? Is there a previous bug report I can reference?
DKMS should handle its own dependencies, I'd have thought - I see a clear
use case for installing header files without the corresponding images.
C
Control: tags -1 wontfix
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 05:19:39PM +, Colm Buckley wrote:
> The linux-headers packages for kernel version 6.6 seem to depend on the
> corresponding
> linux-image packages, but I believe that this should not be the case (and was
> not the
> case in previous versions).
Some previous versions, for contrast:
% apt-cache depends linux-headers-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64
linux-headers-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-amd64
Depends: linux-headers-6.5.0-0.deb12.4-common
Depends: linux-kbuild-6.5.0-0.deb12.4
Depends: linux-compiler-gcc-12-x86
% apt-cache depends linux-headers-6.1.0-18
Package: linux-headers-6.6.13+bpo-amd64
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: c...@tuatha.org
Dear Maintainer,
The linux-headers packages for kernel version 6.6 seem to depend on the
corresponding
linux-image packages, but I believe that this should not be the case (and was
not the
case in previous ve
31 matches
Mail list logo
