search

heikomat / linux

Linux kernel source tree
Other
43 stars 8 forks source link

Docker builds for ArchLinux #9

Closed StefanescuCristian closed 5 years ago

StefanescuCristian commented 5 years ago

You should test if this works for you too before merging.

heikomat commented 5 years ago

that was quick :D I'll later test if this works, but glancing over it i already noticed two things:

  1. There is a # missing here
  2. In the dockerfile, you're cloning from a different git repository, presumably because that other repository has the config files required to build the arch packages. I'd prefer the config files to be in this PR/repository, so that it works independent of the other repository.
    I understand that that can't actually be tested yet (because the config files are not yet in this repository)

When i get to testing this, i'll adjust these two things, but you have saved me a ton of time by doing the bulk of the arch package build work! :)

StefanescuCristian commented 5 years ago

  1. If you could change that, would be great.

  2. The repo is actually just "instructions" for makepkg on how to build the package for ArchLinux. You can see the content of it here: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/?h=linux-cx2072x. The PKGBUILD file actually gets the sourcefiles for the kernel from your repo (see line 9) What I think we can do is make a git submodule ( https://git-scm.com/docs/gitsubmodules) in your repo with the Archlinux AUR git, and a rewrite of the Dockerfile to make a git clone of your repo and an update to the submodule before building.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 6:13 PM Heiko Mathes notifications@github.com wrote:

that was quick :D I'll later test if this works, but glancing over it i already noticed two things:

  1. There is a # missing here https://github.com/heikomat/linux/blob/35b47a56d6389c50c518787e34994ae85dc9fc64/Dockerfile_arch#L12
  2. In the dockerfile you're cloning from a different git repository, presumably because that other repository has the config files required to build the arch packages. I'd prefer the config files to be in this PR/repository, so that it works independent of the other repository. I understand that that can't actually be tested yet (because the config files are not yet in this repository)

When i get to testing this, i'll adjust these two things, but you have saved me a ton of time by doing the bulk of the arch package build work! :)

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/heikomat/linux/pull/9#issuecomment-457931070, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo5hKI1q280kxOWAqsJgmyNBKmAS-Mnks5vHdARgaJpZM4aUyug .

-- Multumesc, Cristian Stefanescu Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Cristian%C8%98tef%C4%83nescu Facebook https://www.facebook.com/cristi.stefanescu1 GitHub https://github.com/stefanescucristian

heikomat commented 5 years ago

Hmm... In that case, i'd prefer the build files (Dockerfiles, shell scripts and package config files) to be in their own repository, as there is no necessity to keep them in this linux fork, because they clone this every time anyway.

This would basically mean copying everything from

Into a new GitHub repo that just hosts all the build instructions, and deleting the docker_builds branch. This way, the work in this repository can focus on the actual kernel patches, without having to worry about how to build everything and vice versa.

What do you think?

StefanescuCristian commented 5 years ago

I think this will work and will be more organised this way. If you will go this route, I'll try to refresh the scripts for Arch this week.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 8:51 PM Heiko Mathes notifications@github.com wrote:

Hmm... In that case, i'd prefer the build files (Dockerfiles, shell scripts and package config files) to be in their own repository, as there is no necessity to keep them in this linux fork, because they clone this every time anyway.

This would basically mean copying everything from

Into a new GitHub repo that just hosts all the build instructions, and deleting the docker_builds branch. This way, the work in this repository can focus on the actual kernel patches, without having to worry about how to build everything and vice versa.

What do you think?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/heikomat/linux/pull/9#issuecomment-457943655, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABo5hCWYfXg0lt6ZfbfEKUVq6pJib460ks5vHfVKgaJpZM4aUyug .

-- Multumesc, Cristian Stefanescu Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Cristian%C8%98tef%C4%83nescu Facebook https://www.facebook.com/cristi.stefanescu1 GitHub https://github.com/stefanescucristian

heikomat commented 5 years ago

Sounds good. I'll keep you updated!

heikomat commented 5 years ago

my first exams this semester are tomorrow. i'll be able to do and test what we discussed on the weekend! :)

heikomat commented 5 years ago

Hey @StefanescuCristian I needed to rewrite some things in the dockerfile and PKGBUILD, but i got it to create three .tar.xz packages using your config and build files. See the repo i created here.

Could you go over the Dockerfile and PKGBUILD file there and check if it looks ok after my adjustments? If so, could you run ./build_arch and test the resulting packages?

I would in a later step like automate the creation of the kernels config file (just like it is automated in the docker build), but that is a task for a later date. If the arch builds can be confirmed working, i could add them to the releases of the kernel!

StefanescuCristian commented 5 years ago

Hello,

I'll have some time Saturday to look at it.

heikomat commented 5 years ago

Installed manjaro today and tried installing the docker-built arch kernel. I can build and install the kernel, and it does add the alsa config files to the system and adds the cx2072x boot option to grub. So building an installable kernel works. However the laptop wont boot with the docker built kernel (yet), it's just stuck at the asus boot logo.

Will dig further into that, as it seems to be close to working good enough to add arch to the 5.0 release (hopefully)

heikomat commented 5 years ago

This is the error i get: img_20190215_181911 2