Mainline Kernel Development Strategy

I am in the process of creating packages for kernel-ml and kernel-lt for Rocky8; currently using mainline kernels 5.17 and 5.15.31, respectively.

Curious what requirements, expectations and questions people have for such builds.

Check out the elrepo kernels before you duplicate their efforts:

thanks @pajamian – my initial effort looked at elrepo and ends up being a triangulation of Rocky8, elrepo and CentOS Stream 9 beta spec files,kernel configs, and patches. (plus now, the Rocky branding patches)

Nevertheless, the ELRepo kernels work in Rocky as well as in RHEL.
What do you gain (in addition of sweat) compared to kernel-ml-5.17.1-1.el8.elrepo (currently)?

With the LT, yes, ELRepo is still at kernel-lt-5.4.188-1.el8.elrepo, but if you introduce different “kernel-lt”, then there is potential for conflicts. Your effort could be better at helping ELRepo to rebase their kernel-lt?

I imagine:

  1. different choices of what is module vs a built-in
  2. code signing options
  3. branding options
  4. software supply chain stability and documenation

good points … will look at each of them

I’m honestly of the opinion (as is most of us at rocky) that elrepo should be the go-to for newer kernels for EL. Perhaps you may consider bringing input to the upcoming kernel SIG as well as bringing up these sorts of issues or “ideas” to elrepo.

1 Like

While I tend to agree that your efforts will probably be better utilized by working with elrepo, I am always happy to see someone take the initiative and try to make a difference in our community in any area they choose to do so. If you want to build these kernels yourself and make them available then I’m happy for you to do it.

1 Like

I’d like to make a note here, as a member of the ELRepo team. The version of kernel-lt stays until its EOL, Dec 2025. At that point we will decide on which LTS version we update kernel-lt to.