no more development-sources?

andreas2000 · Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject: no more development-sources?

Hello everybody,

today I've rsynced my machine at home and have seen, that it wants to update my currently installed development-sources to vanilla-sources. Why are development-sources gone? I've enjoyed it to automatically emerge a unpatched kernel and patch only things I'm needing...

does anybody have an idea why development sources are gone?

Thanks for your replies and have a nice evening!

Andreas

mod edit: made sticky --Earthwings

unstuck.
amne, 2005-07-15
_________________
Registered Linux User 371244

codergeek42 · Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject:

I think by default Gentoo now uses the 2.6 kernel entirely, so installing vanilla-sources will give you the same results as if you had installed development-sources on an older profile or the like.
_________________
~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF

andreas2000 · Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:47 pm Post subject:

AFAIK: the vanilla-kernel is including several patches... or am I wrong? As I said before: I've enjoyed installing a "naked" kernel and patching just the things I'm needing. I've switched to development sources because I've had some problems with vanilla kernel and my NVIDIA GeForce FX GO 5200 Graphic Board in connection with IPW2100 WLAN drivers. And as I switched to development sources, never any problems again on any machine I've installed.

Maybe anyone could tell me if the vanilla-sources included in gentoo are unpatched or what were the differencies between "old good" development-sources and vanilla-sources?

Thanks for your patience with my questions...

Andreas.
_________________
Registered Linux User 371244

firephoto

Ok with the change to getting vanilla-sources back for the 2.6 kernel I thought that would end getting the latest rc kernel and it did... last night, now I get sys-kernel/vanilla-sources-2.6.12_rc1 as an update this morning! And development sources do not exist at all in the tree?

Shouldn't vanilla be the lastest stable kernel and development be the latest rc kernel?

It was this way as long as vanilla was in the tree when it was masked but now that it's unmasked it gets updated to the latest rc kernel? what's up with that?

andreas2000 · Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:11 pm Post subject:

ok - I think I have it: in the GWN 20050124 it was mentioned that development-sources are now named vanilla-sources (Gentoo 2005.0) - the problem seems to be solved - I'll get back if having any troubles when updating...

nice evening!

Andreas.
_________________
Registered Linux User 371244

Earthwings · Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject:

Merged https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-2242524.html#2242524 in here.

firephoto · Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:22 pm Post subject:

Also to go along with what I am saying, for the 2.4 kernels they don't have 2.4.30-rc3 in vanilla-sources they stop at 2.4.29 which is the lastest 2.4 version (non pre-patched).

I hope it's a error in the change over since until today it wasn't this way with vanilla-sources so you'd think if it going to be the exact same as development sources it would have been so as long as it was in the tree.

Earthwings · Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:28 pm Post subject:

Sorry for the stupid question, but 2.4.30_rcX was in Portage and not in an overlay?

firephoto · Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject:

DaNIsH · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:34 am Post subject: gentoo-dev-sources ?

Hey,
Sorry for what will probably be a repost, but the closest I've been able to find is the "development-sources" sticky. Which IMO doesn't cover the question.
What happened to gentoo-dev-sources? I've been away from the comp for a while and was planning on unmerging some older kernel revisions, to find portage has no idea what "gentoo-dev-sources" is anymore.

Thanks in advance.

Merged with existing topic down to amne's post. --Maedhros.
_________________
Adopt an unanswered post today

Jarhead · Guru Joined: 26 Mar 2004 Posts: 474

Gentoo-dev-sources is pretty much development-sources with performance and stability patches built-in already.
_________________
Hats off to everyone in leadership, developmental, or administrative capacities for Gentoo Linux. Your hard work is very much appreciated.

DaNIsH · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:38 am Post subject:

So what is the equivalent of gentoo-dev-sources now then?
development-sources have been moved to vanilla-sources (masked), but they're unpatched.. so I wouldn't call them gentoo-dev-sources equivs.
_________________
Adopt an unanswered post today

noup · l33t Joined: 21 Mar 2003 Posts: 917

I don't know if this is what you're asking - probably not - but, just in case, what used to be gentoo-dev-sources is now gentoo-sources. was this it?

_________________
noup.

DaNIsH · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am Post subject:

Ahh great, thanks! I'm pretty bad at structuring questions

_________________
Adopt an unanswered post today

Given M. Sur · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:08 am Post subject:

So that's why etc-update wanted to change /etc/portage/package.keywords to say gentoo-sources instead of gentoo-dev-sources.

Personally, I think it's about time that gentoo-sources became a 2.6 kernel. But, it still seems odd that there is no gentoo-dev-sources anymore. Is it going to be started again when there's a 2.8 kernel, or is it gone forever?

drescherjm · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:11 am Post subject:

Thanks. I was just going to ask about that since I wanted to update my gentoo-dev-sources and emerge said that package did not exist...
_________________
John

My gentoo overlay
Instructons for overlay

DaNIsH · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:24 am Post subject:

Given M. Sur · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:57 am Post subject:

amne · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:37 am Post subject:

Sources were renamed as announced here:
* development-sources -> vanilla-sources
* gentoo-dev-sources -> become gentoo-sources
* rsbac-dev-sources -> rsbac-sources
* hardened-dev-sources -> hardened-sources
* linux26-headers -> linux-headers
_________________
Dinosaur week! (Ok, this thread is so last week)

firephoto · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:04 am Post subject:

Matje · Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject:

I presume that development (= unstable ?) kernels will just be masked. If you want them, you can unmask them. Pretty much the same as all the other packages in portage. I think kernels where the only package that stepped out of line by implementing a seperate package for the development version...
_________________
Life is like a box of chocolates... Before you know it, it's empty...

cdunham · Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:50 am Post subject:

Earthwings · Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:55 am Post subject:

cdunham · Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:23 am Post subject:

Not sure that really explains anything...
_________________
This post more meaningful in a scalar context.

dsd · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:58 pm Post subject:

ok, let me try and clear some things up!

before:

development-sources previously contained ebuilds for an unmodified 2.6 kernel. we also included -rc releases under development-sources.
vanilla-sources previously contained ebuilds for an unmodified 2.4 kernel.

gentoo-dev-sources previously contained ebuilds for a 2.6 kernel with a light patchset applied. this was our most supported kernel and we made sure not to include experimental stuff that we dont have control over.
gentoo-sources previously contained ebuilds for a 2.4 kernel patched with all sorts of things. this was supported but not to the same extent as gentoo-dev-sources

after:

vanilla-sources now contains ebuilds for unmodified 2.6 kernels and unmodified 2.4 kernels. 2.6 is the default. similarly to the old system, we include -rc releases for 2.6 and not for 2.4.

gentoo-sources now contains ebuilds for both the patched 2.4 gentoo kernel (previously known as gentoo-sources) and the lightly patched 2.6 gentoo kernel (previously known as gentoo-dev-sources)

nothing has changed except the package names where the ebuilds can be found (with the obvious exception of 2.6 now being the default)

to clarify peoples concerns individually:

andreas2000: vanilla-sources (both 2.4 and 2.6) is the "naked" kernel. vanilla-sources-2.6.x is the new name for the development-sources that you are used to.

firephoto: we have always split up our kernels by branch. for example we have previously kept 2.4 kernels under vanilla-sources and 2.6 kernels under development-sources. i dont recall us ever keeping "stable" (i.e. 2.x.y) kernels under one package title and "prerelease" (i.e. 2.x.y-rcZ) kernels under another. our current methodology kind of makes sense anyway : we like the portage upgrade system to always deliver you the latest kernel that you want to run. if we kept 2.6.x-rc releases under a different package, then the users of 2.6.10-rc3 would not get an upgrade until 2.6.11-rc1 came out. (ideally the progression should go 2.6.10-rc3 --> 2.6.10 --> 2.6.11-rc1 without intervention, which it does)
the -rc releases will never be marked stable, you'll only get them if you are using the ~arch (testing) tree. if you stick to the stable tree, you'll never see a 2.6-rc release (note this is exactly the same as development-sources was)
also, vanilla-sources-2.4 has never contained -rc releases. we dont focus as much on 2.4 and we dont currently have the resources to maintain 2.4-rc releases. it is a different scenario with 2.6, hence 2.6-rc releases appearing in the tree

DaNIsH: you are looking for gentoo-sources-2.6

00420: when 2.7/2.8 starts being developed, we'll include it when we think it is usable (or usable for testing purposes). i dont know if we'll give it its own package like we did with 2.6, or if we'll stack it under the already-existing package names. that will be decided when the time comes.

the people that mentioned the package.mask thing: vanilla-sources-2.6 and gentoo-sources-2.6 were masked. we've included 2.6 kernels under this name in the tree for a few months now, but you never noticed because we had them in package.mask! the mask was removed as soon as 2005.0 came out as we then intended the switch to take place - packages.gentoo.org is out of date!
_________________
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd