linaro-infrastructure-stakeholders team mailing list archive

[Guilherme Salgado <salgado@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 21:27 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011, Guilherme Salgado wrote:
> > I've noted those on the spec so I don't forget about them.
> 
>  Thanks
> 
> >                                                             However, one
> > thing that is not clear to me is whether or not we want to make a change
> > to no longer install u-boot and x-loader packages on the rootfs.  I know
> > this was suggested but I see it as something that is nice to have and
> > not essential.
> 
>  That's right; I'm not sure what you mean is nice to have not essential:
>  do you mean the .debs installed in the rootfs are nice to have + not
>  essential, or going without installing them is nice to have + not
>  essential?

We agree (don't we?) that the rootfs shouldn't have the packages
containing the boot files installed, but AIUI that's not required for
what we're trying to achieve. That's why I said it's nice to have but
not essential.

> 
> >                 AIUI, we'd have to either change hwpack-create to
> > include just the boot files instead of the packages themselves or
> > continue including the packages but have lmc not install them.  Given
> > that, I'd prefer if we left this for later rather than squeezing it in
> > this spec.
> 
>  That's right, we'd have to change hwpack-create; this spec includes a
>  fair number of hwpack-create changes; why do you think it's a lot of
>  work?

I don't think it's a lot of work, but it is work that won't necessarily
take us any closer to achieving what we want.  I agree it should be
done, but I think it has lower priority than everything else that is
essential to achieve our goal: having board-specific detail in hwpacks.

However, further down you have a good point that if we were to do this
change later, it'd probably require a format bump, so I'm happy to
include it here.

> 
>  I don't think we need hwpack-create to retain the ability to create v1
>  hwpacks, so hwpack-create can just move to what we think makes sense.
> 
>  I think the bzr branch with the hwpack config would hold information
>  about the name of the u-boot .deb to download from the archive, the
>  filename in the .deb to extract, and hwpack-create would copy that file
>  into the hwpack and write "u_boot: u-boot.bin" in the hwpack metadata.
> 
>  linaro-media-create could do something like:
>     # hwpack v1 and v2
>     if has_field("packages"):
>         install_packages_from_hwpack(fields["packages"])
> 
>     # hwpack v2 support
>     if has_field("u_boot"):
>         copy_from_hwpack(fields["u_boot], bootfs_dir)
>     else:
>         copy_from_rootfs(BoardConfig.u_boot_filename, rootfs_dir)
> 
>  Of course, this could as well be in a HwpackV1 and HwpackV2 class, I'm
>  just proposing a way to handle the field.
> 
>  If you think it's a lot of work, we can defer it, but I tried including
>  all the things which would cause a format bump in the new hwpack
>  format.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part