Subject: Re: [bug#40190] Linux-Libre 5.7

From: Vagrant Cascadian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 13:46:03 -0700

On 2020-04-17, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> I think the patcset now needs some minor updates to apply to master, but
>> just wondering when we could consider switching to 5.6... ?
>
> I do not wish to be a blocker on this, and moreover I would welcome it
> if someone else would step up to take over maintenance of our kernel
> packages.

Thanks for all your work!

I've just pushed the source update for 5.7.1 (and packages for
linux-libre-arm*-generic)...

> However, I should say that for all previous kernel upgrades, I have
> taken the time to consider each of the new configuration options
> presented by "make oldconfig" and to try make a sensible choice for each
> one.  I have not found it sufficient to rely on the automatically
> selected choices, which very often default to "no" for modules that
> ought to be included, and occasionally default to "yes" for options that
> are contrary to our commitment to the GNU FSDG.
>
> I will leave it up to the Guix maintainers to decide what to do if no
> one volunteers to take up the job of properly updating our default
> kernel configurations.

I still do not have the the time, ability or confidence to review
updating the configs for multiple architectures...

I wasn't able to produce a working config for 5.7.x on x86_64 (issues
with graphics on intel prevented sway from loading), let alone one that
has been scrutinized for correctness in terms of GNU FSDG.

Can anyone else step in to help with reviewing kernel config updates?

Alternately, is it plausible to work out a blacklist/whitelist feature
for options that can get updated more dynamically that a whole kernel
config? That's well outside my skillset in terms of guile, but that
might be a more maintainable option for the future...

live well,
  vagrant