--- Additional comment from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) on 2019-07-15 07:38:13 UTC --- Thx for your contribution Shaun. It looks good at the first sight. I wonder if that's enough to have "kmod" support in suse ? Any others patch pending ? Is there any location where such zfs modules are maintained ? For information, there is a plan to progressively migrate kmodtool to use RPM macros instead, a start is located in this branch for secure boot support (still WIP). https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/nvieville/rpms/kmodtool/commits/enhancements_and_secure_boot --- Additional comment from Shaun Tancheff on 2019-07-15 08:05:41 UTC --- I have this currently proposed for zfsonlinux: https://github.com/stancheff/zfs/tree/kmp-v4 And this is the SUSE/kmp changes for kmodtool https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/commit/23481a448611a3ffb2dd90e23f673104359a5779 I've been trying to get this onto a fork in src.fedoraproject.org but I'm not very familiar with pagure and fedpkg. --- Additional comment from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) on 2019-07-15 08:24:31 UTC --- Okay, I wish it could be possible to drop the -devel part that is still used, I don't get having a kmod-foo-devel really worth it, specially as solaris layer seems to be bundled within the zfs nowadays. --- Additional comment from Shaun Tancheff on 2019-07-15 09:07:07 UTC --- In zfs case it is use by lustre to build a zfs-osd (object storage device) target layer so the -devel package(s) are used. If not for kmods built on kmods I would agree. I suspect there are other packages with similar use cases, MOFED comes to mind. --- Additional comment from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) on 2019-07-15 09:45:52 UTC --- This is a pretty rare use-case (or we would had more pressure to maintain that). Components having differents kernel modules are provided together to avoid such situation (VirtualBox guest/hosts - Nvidia modeset/uvm/drm ) To me having a kmod-foo-devel always was a big hammer. And I still don't get the reason behind such ? (If you want to fill a separate issue to investigate that, feel free). With that said, what is really used by the lustre component ? And does the "zfs/solaris layer header" really change that often ? Does it change on depending on the kernel options ? kernel version of zfs/solaris struct version/change ? do you want to have a repos with different kmod-zfs-devel for various kernel ?) I think it might more make sense to "bundle" or eventually to drop a -devel from the "userspace" sub-package instead of kmod-zfs (even if the header is meant for kernel space). This might looks simple using local build or even buildsys that do not check carefully "gate" dependencies (like koji does for good reasons), but is incredibly complex from an infra perspective (for no gain).
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to '31'.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to 31.
Hello, As an attempt to take in account support for Suse like distributions, a first proposal is available in the kmodtool fork repository as a branch named "suse_version": https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/nvieville/rpms/kmodtool/commits/suse_version It is based on the enhancements_and_secure_boot branch of kmodtool, and then probably needs the secure boot key features also provided in the akmods fork. The "suse_version" branch based on the secure_boot_key_features one is available here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/nvieville/rpms/akmods/commits/suse_version Actually, using these tools needs to write corresponding foo-kmod.spec file that also take care of Suse distribution for the BuildRequires and buildforkernels settings. But maybe there are other problems to address, or there is another way to do this. These branches are a work in progress and there only purpose is to try to address the availability of kmodtool/akmods in Suse like distributions, even with secure boot feature activated. Cordially, -- NVieville
I am not happy that this is even being worked on when the epel support is still broken, please stop wasting time on Suse support!
I'd like write a new aprox , code and version of akmods and kmodtools we can elinimate some loop use use kmodtool much more strait forward .- The code as is is much difficult to change
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #4) > I am not happy that this is even being worked on when the epel support is > still broken, please stop wasting time on Suse support! As you probably noted it, this is a WIP, and as is, the waste of time was spread out largely before the issue you encountered. The enhancements_and_secure_boot branch of the kmodtool fork and the secure_boot_key_features branch of akmods fork are already taking in account epel/rhel and were tested with success on CentOS6/7 since 2019-04-22 (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484041#c19). As stated in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484041#c24 the enhancements_and_secure_boot branch of the kmodtool fork was modified recently in order to take in account the problems encountered and commented by Kwizart. I know that the proposition made in these forks are probably not so academic or as they should be. See them as attempt to try something to go further. As you, my full time job is not in the array of GNU/Linux things, and I would certainly not waste my limited time in usefulness collaboration in community construction, if it was to be rudely ordered to do this or that. That said, If I could be of any help in resolving the issue you are seeing, I would be very pleased to do so in the range of my limited mean (working only with slow rhel/epel VMs on my limited personal fc30 2011 laptop). I recently created a RHEL8 VM but had no time to experiment forks of akmods/kmodtool on it, so I can't say you if they are working on epel8, but I surely can say they work on CentOS 6 and 7 VMs with secure boot activated. Please feel free to make any comment about these subjects and to explain me in an easy understanding way what I could do to help. Have a good day. Cordially, -- NVieville
(In reply to nicolas.vieville from comment #6) > (In reply to leigh scott from comment #4) > > I am not happy that this is even being worked on when the epel support is > > still broken, please stop wasting time on Suse support! > > As you probably noted it, this is a WIP, and as is, the waste of time was > spread out largely before the issue you encountered. > > The enhancements_and_secure_boot branch of the kmodtool fork and the > secure_boot_key_features branch of akmods fork are already taking in > account epel/rhel and were tested with success on CentOS6/7 since > 2019-04-22 (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484041#c19). For nearly two years I haven't been able to use rfpkg from fedora to build rhel7 packages without skipping n-v-r checks. > > As stated in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484041#c24 the > enhancements_and_secure_boot branch of the kmodtool fork was modified > recently in order to take in account the problems encountered and commented > by Kwizart. I know that the proposition made in these forks are probably not > so academic or as they should be. See them as attempt to try something to go > further. > > As you, my full time job is not in the array of GNU/Linux things, and I > would > certainly not waste my limited time in usefulness collaboration in community > construction, if it was to be rudely ordered to do this or that. > Sorry if my frustration got the better of me, even with a cool head I still believe the Suse changes aren't needed. It will complicate it further, for a single file it already has far too many %if defs. If Suse wants it they can fork it and make it work for them. > That said, If I could be of any help in resolving the issue you are seeing, > I would be very pleased to do so in the range of my limited mean (working > only with slow rhel/epel VMs on my limited personal fc30 2011 laptop). > I recently created a RHEL8 VM but had no time to experiment forks of > akmods/kmodtool on it, so I can't say you if they are working on epel8, but I > surely can say they work on CentOS 6 and 7 VMs with secure boot activated. > > Please feel free to make any comment about these subjects and to explain me > in an easy understanding way what I could do to help. > > Have a good day. > > Cordially, > > > -- > NVieville
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #7) Thank you for your response. Really appreciate. > For nearly two years I haven't been able to use rfpkg from fedora to build > rhel7 packages without skipping n-v-r checks. I always build the packages manually (rpmbuild or mock) in order to be able to test them on real machines or VMs with akmods. I must admit that I nearly never used rfpkg for this job. I tried this evening, and yes I hit the same problem as you (wl-kmod package). > Sorry if my frustration got the better of me, even with a cool head I still > believe the Suse changes aren't > needed. > It will complicate it further, for a single file it already has far too many > %if defs. I agree with you. The kmodtool shell script is already complicated, and taking in account one or more distribution will not make it simpler. > If Suse wants it they can fork it and make it work for them. The Suse branch of the fork is available for that. Thank you again for all the valuable work you do for Fedora and rpmfusion. Cordially, -- NVieville
This message is a reminder that Fedora 31 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 31 on 2020-11-24. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '31'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 31 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 34 development cycle. Changing version to 34.
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 34 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 34 on 2022-06-07. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '34'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 34 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
under review
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 37 development cycle. Changing version to 37.
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 37 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 37 on 2023-12-05. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '37'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 37 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 40 development cycle. Changing version to 40.