# no more development-sources?

## andreas2000

Hello everybody,

today I've rsynced my machine at home and have seen, that it wants to update my currently installed development-sources to vanilla-sources. Why are development-sources gone? I've enjoyed it to automatically emerge a unpatched kernel and patch only things I'm needing... 

does anybody have an idea why development sources are gone?

Thanks for your replies and have a nice evening!

Andreas

mod edit: made sticky --Earthwings

unstuck.

amne, 2005-07-15

----------

## codergeek42

I think by default Gentoo now uses the 2.6 kernel entirely, so installing vanilla-sources will give you the same results as if you had installed development-sources on an older profile or the like.

----------

## andreas2000

AFAIK: the vanilla-kernel is including several patches... or am I wrong? As I said before: I've enjoyed installing a "naked" kernel and patching just the things I'm needing. I've switched to development sources because I've had some problems with vanilla kernel and my NVIDIA GeForce FX GO 5200 Graphic Board in connection with IPW2100 WLAN drivers. And as I switched to development sources, never any problems again on any machine I've installed.

Maybe anyone could tell me if the vanilla-sources included in gentoo are unpatched or what were the differencies between "old good" development-sources and vanilla-sources?

Thanks for your patience with my questions...

Andreas.

----------

## firephoto

Ok with the change to getting vanilla-sources back for the 2.6 kernel I thought that would end getting the latest rc kernel and it did... last night, now I get sys-kernel/vanilla-sources-2.6.12_rc1 as an update this morning! And development sources do not exist at all in the tree?

Shouldn't vanilla be the lastest stable kernel and development be the latest rc kernel?

It was this way as long as vanilla was in the tree when it was masked but now that it's unmasked it gets updated to the latest rc kernel? what's up with that?

----------

## andreas2000

ok - I think I have it: in the GWN 20050124 it was mentioned that development-sources are now named vanilla-sources (Gentoo 2005.0) - the problem seems to be solved - I'll get back if having any troubles when updating...

nice evening!

Andreas.

----------

## Earthwings

Merged https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-2242524.html#2242524 in here.

----------

## firephoto

Also to go along with what I am saying, for the 2.4 kernels they don't have 2.4.30-rc3 in vanilla-sources they stop at 2.4.29 which is the lastest 2.4 version (non pre-patched).

I hope it's a error in the change over since until today it wasn't this way with vanilla-sources so you'd think if it going to be the exact same as development sources it would have been so as long as it was in the tree.

----------

## Earthwings

Sorry for the stupid question, but 2.4.30_rcX was in Portage and not in an overlay?

----------

## firephoto

 *Earthwings wrote:*   

> Sorry for the stupid question, but 2.4.30_rcX was in Portage and not in an overlay?

 

No rc kernels for 2.4 but for 2.6 we get rc kernels in vanilla?

```

# ls -l /usr/portage/sys-kernel/vanilla-sources/

total 105

-rw-r--r--  1 root root 12383 Mar 28 09:37 ChangeLog

-rw-r--r--  1 root root  3480 Mar 28 09:37 Manifest

drwxr-xr-x  2 root root  1112 Mar 28 07:05 files

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   452 Mar 28 07:35 metadata.xml

-rw-r--r--  1 root root  2748 Mar 16 01:34 vanilla-sources-2.0.40-r1.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root  2747 Mar 16 01:34 vanilla-sources-2.2.26-r1.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   515 Jan 13 09:49 vanilla-sources-2.4.20.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   565 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.21.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   519 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.22.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   472 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.23.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   529 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.24-r1.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   534 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.25.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   472 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.26.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   472 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.27.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   472 Jan 12 16:15 vanilla-sources-2.4.28.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   480 Mar 28 09:37 vanilla-sources-2.4.29.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   475 Jan 21 12:36 vanilla-sources-2.6.10.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root  1009 Mar 28 07:35 vanilla-sources-2.6.11.4.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root  1009 Mar 28 07:35 vanilla-sources-2.6.11.5.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root  1010 Mar 28 07:35 vanilla-sources-2.6.11.6.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   549 Mar  2 05:46 vanilla-sources-2.6.11.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   549 Mar 28 06:48 vanilla-sources-2.6.12_rc1.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   450 Jan 10 14:53 vanilla-sources-2.6.5.ebuild

-rw-r--r--  1 root root   456 Jan 10 14:53 vanilla-sources-2.6.7.ebuild

```

See latest 2.4 kernel is the stable release not an rc for the next version.

----------

## DaNIsH

Hey,

Sorry for what will probably be a repost, but the closest I've been able to find is the "development-sources" sticky. Which IMO doesn't cover the question.

What happened to gentoo-dev-sources? I've been away from the comp for a while and was planning on unmerging some older kernel revisions, to find portage has no idea what "gentoo-dev-sources" is anymore.

Thanks in advance.

Merged with existing topic down to amne's post. --Maedhros.

----------

## Jarhead

Gentoo-dev-sources is pretty much development-sources with performance and stability patches built-in already.

----------

## DaNIsH

So what is the equivalent of gentoo-dev-sources now then?

development-sources have been moved to vanilla-sources (masked), but they're unpatched.. so I wouldn't call them gentoo-dev-sources equivs.

----------

## noup

I don't know if this is what you're asking - probably not - but, just in case, what used to be gentoo-dev-sources is now gentoo-sources. was this it?  :Smile: 

----------

## DaNIsH

Ahh great, thanks! I'm pretty bad at structuring questions  :Wink: 

----------

## Given M. Sur

So that's why etc-update wanted to change /etc/portage/package.keywords to say gentoo-sources instead of gentoo-dev-sources.

Personally, I think it's about time that gentoo-sources became a 2.6 kernel.  But, it still seems odd that there is no gentoo-dev-sources anymore.  Is it going to be started again when there's a 2.8 kernel, or is it gone forever?

----------

## drescherjm

Thanks. I was just going to ask about that since I wanted to update my gentoo-dev-sources and emerge said that package did not exist...

----------

## DaNIsH

 *00420 wrote:*   

> So that's why etc-update wanted to change /etc/portage/package.keywords to say gentoo-sources instead of gentoo-dev-sources.
> 
> Personally, I think it's about time that gentoo-sources became a 2.6 kernel.  But, it still seems odd that there is no gentoo-dev-sources anymore.  Is it going to be started again when there's a 2.8 kernel, or is it gone forever?

 

Yeah, I found it pretty weird.

I don't like the fact that I have to unmask gentoo-sources now to keep up to date.

----------

## Given M. Sur

 *DaNIsH wrote:*   

> Yeah, I found it pretty weird.
> 
> I don't like the fact that I have to unmask gentoo-sources now to keep up to date.

 Wow, I didn't even know it was masked.  But a quick search of packages.gentoo.org confirms it.  That is pretty lame.

----------

## amne

Sources were renamed as announced here:

    * development-sources -> vanilla-sources

    * gentoo-dev-sources -> become gentoo-sources

    * rsbac-dev-sources -> rsbac-sources

    * hardened-dev-sources -> hardened-sources

    * linux26-headers -> linux-headers

----------

## firephoto

 *amne wrote:*   

> Sources were renamed as announced here:
> 
>     * development-sources -> vanilla-sources
> 
>     * gentoo-dev-sources -> become gentoo-sources
> ...

 

That still doesn't explain why vanilla was keeping current with the stable kernel until the rename then it all of a sudden went to being release candidate kernels. Except for the 2.4 kernels that still get to be stable and not rc's.  :Wink: 

----------

## Matje

I presume that development (= unstable ?) kernels will just be masked. If you want them, you can unmask them. Pretty much the same as all the other packages in portage. I think kernels where the only package that stepped out of line by implementing a seperate package for the development version...

----------

## cdunham

 *Quote:*   

> I presume that development (= unstable ?) kernels will just be masked.

 

You what happens when you presume. You make a pre out of Sue and me.

Anyway, the thing that is still unanswered about this is what voodoo led to the gentoo-sources package showing as hard masked in packages.gentoo.org, but they emerge just fine. Something to do with cascading profiles, but what? Are there other packages like this?

----------

## Earthwings

 *cdunham wrote:*   

> Anyway, the thing that is still unanswered about this is what voodoo led to the gentoo-sources package showing as hard masked in packages.gentoo.org, but they emerge just fine. Something to do with cascading profiles, but what? Are there other packages like this?

 

See https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-315212.html

linux-headers and *-sources are the only packages like that.

----------

## cdunham

Not sure that really explains anything...

----------

## dsd

ok, let me try and clear some things up!

before:

development-sources previously contained ebuilds for an unmodified 2.6 kernel. we also included -rc releases under development-sources.

vanilla-sources previously contained ebuilds for an unmodified 2.4 kernel.

gentoo-dev-sources previously contained ebuilds for a 2.6 kernel with a light patchset applied. this was our most supported kernel and we made sure not to include experimental stuff that we dont have control over.

gentoo-sources previously contained ebuilds for a 2.4 kernel patched with all sorts of things. this was supported but not to the same extent as gentoo-dev-sources

after:

vanilla-sources now contains ebuilds for unmodified 2.6 kernels and unmodified 2.4 kernels. 2.6 is the default. similarly to the old system, we include -rc releases for 2.6 and not for 2.4.

gentoo-sources now contains ebuilds for both the patched 2.4 gentoo kernel (previously known as gentoo-sources) and the lightly patched 2.6 gentoo kernel (previously known as gentoo-dev-sources)

nothing has changed except the package names where the ebuilds can be found (with the obvious exception of 2.6 now being the default)

to clarify peoples concerns individually:

andreas2000: vanilla-sources (both 2.4 and 2.6) is the "naked" kernel. vanilla-sources-2.6.x is the new name for the development-sources that you are used to.

firephoto: we have always split up our kernels by branch. for example we have previously kept 2.4 kernels under vanilla-sources and 2.6 kernels under development-sources. i dont recall us ever keeping "stable" (i.e. 2.x.y) kernels under one package title and "prerelease" (i.e. 2.x.y-rcZ) kernels under another. our current methodology kind of makes sense anyway : we like the portage upgrade system to always deliver you the latest kernel that you want to run. if we kept 2.6.x-rc releases under a different package, then the users of 2.6.10-rc3 would not get an upgrade until 2.6.11-rc1 came out. (ideally the progression should go 2.6.10-rc3 --> 2.6.10 --> 2.6.11-rc1 without intervention, which it does)

the -rc releases will never be marked stable, you'll only get them if you are using the ~arch (testing) tree. if you stick to the stable tree, you'll never see a 2.6-rc release (note this is exactly the same as development-sources was)

also, vanilla-sources-2.4 has never contained -rc releases. we dont focus as much on 2.4 and we dont currently have the resources to maintain 2.4-rc releases. it is a different scenario with 2.6, hence 2.6-rc releases appearing in the tree  :Smile: 

DaNIsH: you are looking for gentoo-sources-2.6

00420: when 2.7/2.8 starts being developed, we'll include it when we think it is usable (or usable for testing purposes). i dont know if we'll give it its own package like we did with 2.6, or if we'll stack it under the already-existing package names. that will be decided when the time comes.

the people that mentioned the package.mask thing: vanilla-sources-2.6 and gentoo-sources-2.6 were masked. we've included 2.6 kernels under this name in the tree for a few months now, but you never noticed because we had them in package.mask! the mask was removed as soon as 2005.0 came out as we then intended the switch to take place - packages.gentoo.org is out of date!

----------

## firephoto

 *dsd wrote:*   

> ok, let me try and clear some things up!
> 
> 

 

Thanks, that makes sense of things with the change and some of the "older" package history. I mostly only had the "vanilla" getting pulled in so I'd always have somewhat of an alert to when a new stable kernel was out so I just have the next versions rc's masked for now but this isn't very useful since most patches are against the 2.6.11.0 kernel and not the 11-dot releases.

I think the idea of having the development sources pull in the latest-in-any-form vanilla kernel might be received well by some but it would mean throwing the release kernel in their when it is finished since there's a period of time before the next kernel's rc comes out but that should only be a matter of bumping the ebuild name like anything else. Not sure how needed it is since gentoo-sources doesn't really do anything to hurt the vanilla kernel.

----------

## dsd

i'm not sure i understand exactly what you are saying

 *firephoto wrote:*   

> I think the idea of having the development sources pull in the latest-in-any-form vanilla kernel might be received well by some

 

thats not the case, most users will only get the latest stable kernel in their chosen branch, not the -rc ones, unless they explicitly ask for them (e.g. remove the keywords or go into testing tree)

 *Quote:*   

> but that should only be a matter of bumping the ebuild name like anything else.

 

thats all it is at the moment, and all it has been for a very long time. as an example, vanilla-sources-2.6.12_rc1.ebuild is identical to vanilla-sources-2.6.11.ebuild except for CVS header and keywords

----------

## puke

Ok I need some help.

I use kernel 2.4 (hardened-sources) on a production box.  I don't want to switch to 2.6 now.

Also, I've noticed that my /etc/make.profile still points to /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.0.

Do I need to update my make.profile link? (to what?  I've looked for upgrade documentation, couldn't see it?)

And do I need to put in a portage mask for =<hardened-sources-2.4.99 ?

BTW the way the Gentoo docs are organized is really starting to bug me.  Very hard to find what you are looking for..

----------

## dsd

 *Quote:*   

> I use kernel 2.4 (hardened-sources) on a production box.  I don't want to switch to 2.6 now.

 

hardened-dev-sources is not being merged into hardened-sources for now, so hardened-sources will stay as 2.4 only.

 *Quote:*   

> Do I need to update my make.profile link? (to what?  I've looked for upgrade documentation, couldn't see it?)

 

you should probably upgrade to a 2005.0 profile, see http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml

 *Quote:*   

> BTW the way the Gentoo docs are organized is really starting to bug me.  Very hard to find what you are looking for..

 

feel free to be specific about what makes them badly organised ..  :Wink: 

----------

## cdunham

 *Quote:*   

> the people that mentioned the package.mask thing: vanilla-sources-2.6 and gentoo-sources-2.6 were masked. we've included 2.6 kernels under this name in the tree for a few months now, but you never noticed because we had them in package.mask! the mask was removed as soon as 2005.0 came out as we then intended the switch to take place - packages.gentoo.org is out of date!

 

Are you sure? There is no entry in packages.mask, but it's still marked as masked in packages.gentoo.org...

----------

## dsd

am i sure about what? you quoted quite a bit  :Smile: 

but yes, i am sure about everything i said there.

----------

## puke

Thanks for your quick response!  :Very Happy: 

 *dsd wrote:*   

> 
> 
> hardened-dev-sources is not being merged into hardened-sources for now, so hardened-sources will stay as 2.4 only.
> 
>  *Quote:*   BTW the way the Gentoo docs are organized is really starting to bug me.  Very hard to find what you are looking for.. 
> ...

 

Well, I just took another look and found this:

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/list.xml

That's a format I prefer.  They don't seem to be searchable; in fact, I don't think anything on the main site is (??).

----------

## cdunham

 *Quote:*   

> am i sure about what? you quoted quite a bit 
> 
> but yes, i am sure about everything i said there.

 

Yes, sorry about that. I was referring to packages.gentoo.org being out of date. Isn't this automatically-generated? Either way, why is it still showing the 2.6 gentoo-sources versions as hard masked?

----------

## dsd

it does update automatically, maybe theres a bug.

actually, just thought, perhaps it is using one of the 2.4 profiles, where all 2.6 packages are profile-masked for obvious reasons

----------

## cdunham

Thanks, dsd, that makes perfect sense. Perhaps there needs to be a profile option in packages.gentoo.org...

----------

## tempest

All the above makes perfect sense. Just one question, though: I currently have development-sources 2.6.9 and 2.6.11.4 installed, how do I unmerge these packages?

----------

## tecknojunky

I'm not sure if this is what is causing my troubles, but I ended up emerging the 2.6 linux-headers on my cluster's nodes running OM (hence 2.4).  Now, aclocal segfaults on emerging coreutils on all of them.

Like many things Gentoo, this is yet one other change that is badly managed.  I'm getting very tired of those fuckups.

For those, like me, who made the same mistake:

```
rm /etc/make.profile; ln -s ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0/2.4 /etc/make.profile
```

The, redo a emerge -p world to verify the linux-headers for the 2.4 kernel will get merged back.

----------

## Ard Righ

Ok, I notice by doing a 'emerge -Cp gentoo-sources' that it still finds the old gentoo-dev-source packages. So once I update my kernel, I will go about removing the older source directories  :Very Happy: 

----------

## dsd

 *tecknojunky wrote:*   

> I'm not sure if this is what is causing my troubles, but I ended up emerging the 2.6 linux-headers on my cluster's nodes running OM (hence 2.4).  Now, aclocal segfaults on emerging coreutils on all of them.
> 
> Like many things Gentoo, this is yet one other change that is badly managed.  I'm getting very tired of those fuckups.

 

many people have been running linux 2.6 headers for a very long time, and yours is the first problem report that i've seen from this migration process. please dont assume that problems you experience affect everyone. instead of complaining on the forums which gets you nowhere, you need to file a bug.

----------

## tecknojunky

 *dsd wrote:*   

>  *tecknojunky wrote:*   I'm not sure if this is what is causing my troubles, but I ended up emerging the 2.6 linux-headers on my cluster's nodes running OM (hence 2.4).  Now, aclocal segfaults on emerging coreutils on all of them.
> 
> Like many things Gentoo, this is yet one other change that is badly managed.  I'm getting very tired of those fuckups. 
> 
> many people have been running linux 2.6 headers for a very long time, and yours is the first problem report that i've seen from this migration process. please dont assume that problems you experience affect everyone. instead of complaining on the forums which gets you nowhere, you need to file a bug.

 I'm sorry.  Sometimes complaining only serves the purpose of leting out some steam.  I admit, it does not solve anything else.

I doubt you can run the 2.6 headers with a 2.4 kernel.  I think it's what caused all the segfaults on my box.  The main thing is that you had to update the profile and, somehow, I missed that new thing to be done.  I still don't know where this was announced.

----------

## ericxx2005

 *Quote:*   

> amne wrote:
> 
> Sources were renamed as announced here:
> 
> * development-sources -> vanilla-sources
> ...

 

Can anyone try to explain the difference of these to a gentoo newbie?  I think I know what vanilla and gentoo-sources are, but whare are the other ones?

----------

## dsd

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-kernel.xml

----------

## bone

 *tecknojunky wrote:*   

> I doubt you can run the 2.6 headers with a 2.4 kernel.  I think it's what caused all the segfaults on my box.  The main thing is that you had to update the profile and, somehow, I missed that new thing to be done.  I still don't know where this was announced.

 

This is exactly what I am wondering about. I run the grsec-sources-2.4.29.2.1.4 kernel sources and am wondering why an emerge -up world is telling me I need the following:

```
[ebuild     U ] sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.8.1-r4 [2.4.22-r1]
```

How can I stop this from happening, or is it OK to have these linux-headers with my kernel version?

jt

----------

## dsd

probably safest to select a 2.4 profile so that the newer headers dont get pulled in. you will find all the details you need in (or linked to from) this thread

----------

## tecknojunky

 *bone wrote:*   

> 
> 
> ```
> [ebuild     U ] sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.8.1-r4 [2.4.22-r1]
> ```
> ...

  *tecknojunky wrote:*   

> For those, like me, who made the same mistake:
> 
> ```
> rm /etc/make.profile; ln -s ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0/2.4 /etc/make.profile
> ```
> ...

 

----------

