Re: [RFC] Removing sys-kernel/vanilla-kernel

On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:04 AM Sam James <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Yuan Liao (Leo)" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> The blocker is with the default config. If you use savedconfig and
> customise the name, it's fine.

I just looked at gentoo-kernel{-bin}-7.0.11.ebuild, and the blockers
are not conditioned on USE=savedconfig:

# gentoo-kernel-7.0.11.ebuild
RDEPEND="
    !sys-kernel/gentoo-kernel-bin:${SLOT}
"

# gentoo-kernel-bin-7.0.11.ebuild
RDEPEND="
    !sys-kernel/gentoo-kernel:${SLOT}
"

(I am traveling now, so I don't have the convenience to test merging
those ebuilds and can only reason about them by looking at the code at
the moment.)

Even if savedconfig would make the blockers ineffective, I prefer to
use /etc/kernel/config.d [1] instead of savedconfig to customize
distribution kernels.  This way, when there's a new mainline kernel
version (e.g. 7.1 for the purpose of discussion), I can use the
Distribution Kernel Project's 7.1 config + my own config.d overrides,
which would be more up-to-date than my old 7.0 savedconfig.

[1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Distribution_Kernel#Using_.2Fetc.2Fkernel.2Fconfig.d

> Is there a particular reason? In Gentoo, we've never done extensive
> patching of the kernel, which we see as a feature. It's only a small set
> of config options, sometimes a few backports, and maybe one or two other
> small things.
>
> If you really want to duplicate that work, feel free, but why do you
> then need a package for it?

Until the recent wave of CVEs, I had been happy with the upstream
kernel sources and had rarely patched them.  Now, the upstream has
delayed merging some critical fixes into stable releases.  That's why
I looked into switching to gentoo-kernel.  However, I would like to
use a distribution kernel that doesn't conflict with
gentoo-kernel-bin, and as I understand it now, vanilla-kernel is the
only package meeting this criterion.

Thanks,
Leo3418