Would it be valuable to add a section or article on doing kernel regression testing using git? Ideally, such an article would cover everything from git clone to the bug-report itself.
Given that we are a highly up to date release, we do live on the edge of new commits. It seems likely that we are some of the first in the "general" public that encounter regressions and I'd like to encourage people to track down these issues in a decent manner.--stefanwilkens (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
old talk from Talk:Kernel Compilation without ABS for New Users
I fail to see the usefulness of the linux_kernel.sh script. It does nothing a PKGBUILD doesn't do better and it installs the kernel without integration into pacman. I suggest we get rid of it. Oal
- I completely agree. I think it's extremely misleading and we shouldn't encourage this kind of thing. Note that this is mutually exclusive from discouraging someone from building their own kernel outside the confines of makepkg (which we should not actively discourage). Everything about this script scares me, and it leads to bbs posts such as  where the user clearly is at a loss because of some unofficial black box involvement. Falconindy
- And I deleted this on 8/16. Falconindy
- Oal / Falconindy, the script is indeed a very useful one and allows any user to upgrade their kernel to any version with ease and simplicity. It runs very well, and has more than adequate checks as to avoid adding/removing any file on a user's system. It also provides a complete summary at the end. I've gotten numerous responses from individuals who were very satisfied using this script, and the statistics alone verify its popularity. Keep in mind, I clearly stated on the wiki it is an "alternative" method to using pkgbuild, and I even provide a link to the package method on the wiki. Nobody is forcing anyone to use the script, it is entirely the user's choice. That user who had an issue could have easily contacted me about the indicated problem (my name and e-mail on the downloadable script is clearly there, and I also encourage anyone with an issue to contact me: that particular user didn't). However, a single issue is certainly no reason to remove such a useful and popular item from the Arch wiki without bothering to contact me at all. I would never in my lifetime remove a helpful and informative wiki submission without first contacting the originating author, it's not standard procedure and a bit unprofessional. This decision of yours seems to be more politically motivated and coincides with a 'heated' debate I recently had on the Arch Linux IRC channel (one day prior to removal of this script) about the method involved with a 'trusted user', which several of you are. After this debate on the #archlinux-offtopic channel, this wiki submission was immediately removed. Strange, isn't it? The individual was a 'trusted user' as well. It seems it is stepping on the wrong toes politically. This is something that obviously works well, and it is being removed. This doesn't seem right at all. I've never had any complaints about the script except for the forum topic you indicated with link. I think we should all discuss this 'live' on IRC at a mutual time. Let me know. This is the most professional way to resolve any issue, instead of blindly removing something because it is deemed to be "controversial". Can you please further explain, in detail, as to why it is controversial?
- Karol, and what is your issue with this? You only sarcastically stated, "And it's back". Can you please provide valid and intuitive reasons as to why you might oppose it?
- I'm always open and available for constructive discussion. If in the event I do not have time, I always tend to 'make' time. Please provide me with a mutually convenient time and date to meet "live" on either chat, or even Skype if you prefer. Let's discuss this in person (live), as it is more of an effective means to get things done.
- Arch Linux and the community has always been open to alternative, secure, and flexible methods of accomplishing the same function or task, even if the pkgbuild using pacman is the standard. It is completely understandable if a substantial number of individuals had an issue with the Kernel compilation script in question, however, this is NOT obviously the case. I would be glad to hear more of your suggestions as to why this component of the wiki should, (in your opinion) be removed. Again, it's user's choice, and not an enforced standard.
- My e-mail is: firstname.lastname@example.org and nick on IRC 'Losowski' -- Ejmarkow 14:48, 17 August 2011 (CET)
- I didn't mean to be sarcastic, only to be brief. I marked the issue as closed so I thought I should point out that it's not solved at all. -- Karol 11:45, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
- The script isn't useful (if you want automation, use a pkgbuild) and is controversial. It doesn't belong here and was therefore removed. If you want to keep it in the wiki, I suggest you move it to its own page (suitably labeled controversial). Frankly, your undoing the removal is unprofessional and possibly the start of an edit war. — yngwin 12:31, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
- @Yngwin, when it comes to installing the Linux Kernel, as you know being a package maintainer, there are several options to achieve this. Use the pkgbuild, or opting not to use it, or use pacman to install a pre-configured vanilla 'stable' kernel. The script in question only automates the manual compilation process which is quite basic for anyone with knowledge of it. It wasn't meant to automate or replace the pkgbuild process at all, it's an alternative (this was made clear in the wiki), never claiming to be better than pkgbuild in any way. Prior to posting a link to the script, I've carefully read all of the Arch Wiki policies and procedures regarding editing and external links and it appeared there was no conflict. The link is relevant to the process I describe. If I were to come across a wiki entry (that goes for any wiki) and feel the need to 'remove' a segment in its entirety, it's only appropriate etiquette to, at a minimum, contact the original author first, discuss it, and then come to a conclusion. That doesn't require much effort, does it? It's quite interesting this "suddenly" became such a heated issue, when so many users have been using the script with excellent results for quite a time. Again, the positive and encouraging statistics, lack of complaints, and consistent usage of the script speaks for itself. If the general consensus among the majority of the Arch developers is to remove it, than I shall do so promptly. First, let's discuss it a bit. It would have been informative if such an external link policy was included in the wiki help section in the first place to avoid such matters. Again, no one ever explicitly explained what is so controversial about the script. Sure, it runs in root, isn't in github (yet). What else? -- Ejmarkow 20:47, 17 August 2011 (CET)
- @Faclonindy wrote: "Everything about this script scares me, and it leads to bbs posts such as  where the user clearly is at a loss because of some unofficial black box involvement." Falconindy, I just received the user's kernel .config file via private e-mail this morning and the problem is a simple input error by the user, and not some "black box involvement" as you wrongly assume. You have obviously exaggerated and compounded a minor issue into something major, which it apparently isn't. The problem and resolution to that user's issue is an easy one: One, single variable value in the script input area was entered incorrectly by the user, which should have matched another parameter in his .config file, and that's all it is. [It has always been clearly noted in the script to ensure both values match]. However, as with any program / script, some things can be improved, such as adding a check mechanism to ensure such a variable mismatch never occurs in the future. If this does occur, a friendly warning message will be displayed along with the error, and the script will terminate. This will be added immediately. Please look at the thread again for my replies. I always make sure to help any Arch Linux user resolve their issues as much as possible. Thank you. -- Ejmarkow 10:01, 18 August 2011 (CET)
FYI, I think Thestinger's recent edit of this wiki page is a very acceptable, descriptive one. A more detailed 'note' along with appropriate links were added as followed: "Compiling as non-root using the Arch Build System is safer than using root and will result in a package that can be tracked by pacman. See Kernel Compilation for details". Also, the wiki page name was edited from "Kernel Compilation from Source for New Users" to "Kernel Compilation without ABS for New Users". This is very good, much appreciated. -- Ejmarkow 22:01, 18 August 2011 (CET)
- I agree! Thanks, thestinger, for cleaning this up! -- pointone 19:44, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
- I concur with the removal of the script method. @Ejmarkow: Other than patching a kernel, what does the script do? Perhaps re-labeling "Patching a kernel via script" T1nk3r3r 10:41, 8 November 2011 (EST)