[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jun 14 21:10:19 UTC 2006
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583
kevin at tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kevin at tummy.com
------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2006-06-14 17:02 EST -------
Adding back in the last comments from the bugzilla crash:
------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2006-06-08 23:18 EST -------
ok. I'd like to move this forward some...
Using the spec/src.rpm from http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/
(refered to from the asterisk review), and the "kernel module package" section in
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules.
Name/URL and License are all known from your spec, but the guidelines also ask:
"A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with
the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get merged. You of course can
ask the author to explain it directly in the bug report."
Can you get that information from upstream?
Also from that page:
"All kernel module packages should use the template as a base. Reviewers of
kernel modules should diff the proposed kernel module packages against the
template. Only the names and the way the modules itself are build should differ.
There shouldn't be other differences without a good reason."
It's unclear what template should be diffed against there. kmodtool (the latest
version is used by this spec) and thus generates the spec additions exactly as
required. Is there a default template for the spec file to be used? If so where?
I did diff against the thinkpad-kmod, but there is a good deal of whitespace and
other minor changes that make it difficult to see changes.
(BTW, thinkpad-kmod has a typo in it's spec refering to lirc on line 8)
------- Additional Comments From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us 2006-06-09 00:51 EST
-------
(In reply to comment #35)
> ok. I'd like to move this forward some...
Excellent!
> Using the spec/src.rpm from http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/
> (refered to from the asterisk review), and the "kernel module package" section in
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules.
>
> Name/URL and License are all known from your spec, but the guidelines also ask:
>
> "A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with
> the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get merged. You of course can
> ask the author to explain it directly in the bug report."
>
> Can you get that information from upstream?
I'll see if I can get some sort of statement from Digium, but it seems to be a
combination of "we don't want to go to the bother" and "we don't want to be at
the mercy of the kernel developers". The zaptel modules work on both 2.4 and
2.6 kernels so there's a lot of compatibility code. Many of the newer features
of 2.6 aren't taken advantage of. I'm sure that it would take a lot of work to
cut out the 2.4 compatibility code, rewrite to take more advantage of 2.6 and to
get something that fits the kernel style guidelines.
I'd also bet that the majority of serious asterisk users aren't running asterisk
on the latest & greatest kernel. In fact there are quite a few using 2.4. Yet
they all need bug fixes and new features from the latest zaptel modules so there
will likely always be a need to have a standalone package that can compile
against older kernels. Since you need a standalone package anyway, why go to
the extra work of getting the modules into the mainline kernel?
Anyway, that's the read I get from the upstream developers.
> Also from that page:
> "All kernel module packages should use the template as a base. Reviewers of
> kernel modules should diff the proposed kernel module packages against the
> template. Only the names and the way the modules itself are build should differ.
> There shouldn't be other differences without a good reason."
>
> It's unclear what template should be diffed against there. kmodtool (the latest
> version is used by this spec) and thus generates the spec additions exactly as
> required. Is there a default template for the spec file to be used? If so where?
> I did diff against the thinkpad-kmod, but there is a good deal of whitespace and
> other minor changes that make it difficult to see changes.
>
> (BTW, thinkpad-kmod has a typo in it's spec refering to lirc on line 8)
As fas as I can tell there isn't an official template yet. I've been working
from the thinkpad-kmod and the lirc-kmod packages.
------- Additional Comments From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us 2006-06-09 00:56 EST
-------
I've also been seeing the following errors when trying to build i386 packages on
a x86_64 host in mock:
+ make -C /usr/src/kernels/2.6.16-1.2122_FC5-i686
SUBDIRS=/builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_ modules
make: Entering directory `/usr/src/kernels/2.6.16-1.2122_FC5-i686'
CC [M] /builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_/zaptel.o
/builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_/zaptel.c:1: error: code
model 'kernel' not supported in the 32 bit mode
make[1]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_/zaptel.o] Error 1
make: *** [_module_/builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_] Error
2make: Leaving directory `/usr/src/kernels/2.6.16-1.2122_FC5-i686'
Is there something I'm doing wrong? Building x86_64 packages on a x86_64 box
works fine, as well as building i386 packages on an i386 box.
------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2006-06-09 01:18 EST -------
(In reply to comment #37)
> I've also been seeing the following errors when trying to build i386 packages on
> a x86_64 host in mock:
use "setarch i686 mock ..." to build
------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2006-06-09 01:42 EST -------
I seem to get a build failure on one of the patches:
+ pushd zaptel-1.2.6
~/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/zaptel-1.2.6 ~/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6
+ patch -p0
patching file zconfig.h
+ patch -p0
patching file Makefile
Hunk #1 FAILED at 22.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.rej
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22247 (%prep)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22247 (%prep)
Can you put up the latest spec and src.rpm that you are using thats building
cleanly?
------- Additional Comments From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us 2006-06-09 09:46 EST
-------
(In reply to comment #38)
> (In reply to comment #37)
> > I've also been seeing the following errors when trying to build i386 packages on
> > a x86_64 host in mock:
>
> use "setarch i686 mock ..." to build
Thanks! That works...
------- Additional Comments From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us 2006-06-09 10:39 EST
-------
(In reply to comment #39)
>
> Can you put up the latest spec and src.rpm that you are using thats building
> cleanly?
Those source rpms were built using mock, so they should be building cleanly.
Nevertheless I've pushed out new source RPMs. The URL is:
http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/
------- Additional Comments From rmo at sunnmore.net 2006-06-12 14:45 EST -------
I'm getting symbol errors both when trying to build kmod-zaptel on fc5.x86_64
and while installing pre build packages from repo.ocjtech.us
[root at homer asterisk]# rpm -ivh kmod-zaptel-1.2.6-5.2.6.16_1.2133_FC5.x86_64.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
1:kmod-zaptel ########################################### [100%]
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/pciradio.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wct4xxp.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wcusb.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wctdm24xxp.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/ztd-eth.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wctdm.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/ztdynamic.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wcte11xp.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/zaptel.ko needs unknown
symbol __stack_chk_fail
Same error when building the packages my self
------- Additional Comments From tjb at unh.edu 2006-06-12 15:17 EST -------
Me too.
[tjb at gile tjb]# modprobe zaptel
FATAL: Error inserting zaptel
(/lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5smp/extra/zaptel/zaptel.ko): Unknown symbol in
module, or unknown parameter (see dmesg)
[tjb at gile tjb]#
------- Additional Comments From jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us 2006-06-13 08:44 EST
-------
The __stack_chk_fail comes from compiling modules with -fstack-protector, which
they obviously shouldn't. Did the 2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 modules work for you?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list