Summary: | Add bproc to portage | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Donnie Berkholz (RETIRED) <dberkholz> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Cluster Team <cluster> |
Status: | RESOLVED UPSTREAM | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | roothorick, xmerlin |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://bproc.sourceforge.net/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Donnie Berkholz (RETIRED)
2003-11-02 20:09:25 UTC
You have my vote, BProc is a staple in my project. On a more serious note, this can't be added to portage until the required kernel patch is either added to one of the available kernel sources, or given its own kernel source ebuild. Maybe the Gentoo kernel maintainers should be on the CC list? Looking at it, it seems that one can build kernel modules, so separate sources shouldn't be needed. On the other hand, I sure as heck can't figure out how on earth to get them to built. I think that the 2.6 kernel requires the 4.0-pre versions, and that's as far as I got. Sorry. I've built Bproc many times, including 4.0preX under 2.6, which is pretty stable. It builds a couple of modules (vmadump and bproc), but it does require patching the kernel. Unfortunately, development has dropped off since the author left LANL to work for google. The most recent kernel that works with bproc is 2.6.9, and it is up in the air as to who will continue to maintain the project. I'm not sure of the merit of building a kernel source tree for Bproc. I'm not saying the project is dead, but I know of something better in the works at LANL. Maybe it doesn't hurt to at least make ebuilds of bproc and beoboot. I might get around to it. Is it good enough to just splash a warning that you need a bproc'ed kernel to make any use of it? I guess we'll upstream this until it's maintained again. If you feel like making an ebuild, go for it, but I don't think we'll add it because of your new info. |