Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:19:29AM CEST, kedars(a)marvell.com wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Pirko [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 25 June 2009 20:58
> To: Peter Lemenkov
> Cc: fedora-arm(a)redhat.com; Kedar Sovani
> Subject: Re: [fedora-arm] Ok, my ARM machine works quite well,
> but how can I help you?
> Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 05:18:29PM CEST, lemenkov(a)gmail.com wrote:
> >2009/6/25 Jiri Pirko <jpirko(a)redhat.com>:
> >>>> Also, I plan to provide instructions on how to set up
> fedora on
> >>>> my Western Digital's MyBook (and, probably, pre-built
> >>>> bootloader(s) and kernel).
> >> I want to do the same for Beagleboard. Also I'm thinking
> about adding kernel rpm
> >> directly for Beagle. Is there any activity to build board-
> specific kernels?
> >Someone created pre-built kernel for SheevaPlug. That's all
> >Anyway, we should start providing them. But before, I think
> that we
> >should come to an agreement regarding common subset of kernel
> >(filesystems, handware, etc). I thinkit may simplify the
> process of
> >creating rpms.
> Agree, but this would be very board-spacific. But e.g. config
> options for
> usb-devices etc should should be the same.
The fedora kernel repository has a nice way of managing the configuration differences with
a merge.pl script. Every architecture specifies only the configuration options that
differ, and the rest are picked from the standard template.
The current ARM "kernel" rpm is only a placeholder/dummy rpm which satisfies the
"provides" etc. dependencies of other packages.
How should we go about the multiple kernels approach:
1. create multiple kernel rpms for multiple boards? kernel-sheevaplug, kernel-beagle,
I vote for this variant. I think we should generate as small packages as we
not one-big-rpm-that-contains-everything. We must keep in mind we are in most
cases in the embedded world :)
2. create a single kernel rpm with multiple images stored within it?
3. forget the kernel rpm, let each board have its own pre-built kernel binary available?
Since anyway most of the people will probably burn the kernel separately on the flash?
Hmm, I would like to have rpm. IMHO it's the clean way of doing this. Even if
the rpm only "carries" the kernel and user must install it by hand. But I can
imagine boards where the kernel is in the "constant" place and rpm can be used
to actually install it.
> >With best regards!