[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#32167: Kernel 'build' directory in the store is a broken symbolic li

From: pkill9
Subject: bug#32167: Kernel 'build' directory in the store is a broken symbolic link
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:10:13 +0100 (BST)

Yes I agree with you, since it is a lot of space then it's probably best to 
just delete the symlink.

The reasoning behind my suggestion of keeping it is mostly for convenience in 
compiling/testing an external kernel module, i.e. just downloading the source 
and then compiling it with the currently running kernel, and then loading it to 
test it.

Come to think of it, could the build directory be put in another output of the 
linux-libre package?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:03:58 -0400, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:

> Danny Milosavljevic <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:55:11 +0100 (BST)
> > <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> It would be good to keep the build directory though, since it's
> >> expected to exist, and it's easier to just download a module's
> >> source and compile it and test it.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > /run/booted-system/kernel/lib/modules/4.17.3-gnu is in the store
> > anyway so it will be seen by the GC.
> >
> > The fix would be in linux-libre.
> If we were to preserve the kernel build directory as a store item, and
> keep a link from the modules directory to the build directory, that
> would greatly increase the size of the most minimal system that users
> could build.
> The unpacked linux-libre-4.17 source directory is 929 megabytes, and
> that's before building it.  So, keeping the build directory would surely
> increase the closure size of the most minimal system by more than a
> gigabyte.  I don't think it's okay to force all Guix users to pay that
> price.  Some users will need to build minimal systems.
> I'd like to hear more specifics about what the original poster is trying
> to accomplish here.  It's possible that they simply noticed the broken
> links and wanted to let us know.  In that case, it's probably best to
> simply delete those broken symlinks.
> If the intent here is to allow support for out-of-tree kernel modules,
> then fixing these symlinks would not solve the problem, and it's not
> clear to me that fixing them would be part of a proper solution on
> GuixSD.  GuixSD is not a system where you can simply compile a kernel
> module manually and install it, because our module directory is
> immutable.  If the goal is to support building out-of-tree kernel
> modules, that's a separate discussion that deserves its own "wishlist"
> bug report, I think.
> Thoughts?
>        Mark

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]