Re: Bug#526640: Please try to keep the number of flashes minimal
Copying Joey and maks, who initially had the discussion about adding a
flash-kernel call to update-initramfs. I hope they can comment on
* Loïc Minier <email@example.com> [2009-05-02 21:14]:
> On Sat, May 02, 2009, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > This is a long-standing problem (introduced a few months ago). The
> > problem is that flash-kernel will add a postinst hook for the kernel,
> > but nowadays update-initramfs will call flash-kernel directly.
> I was wondering whether we could take steps to move flash-kernel to a
> trigger; I'm aware of earlier discussion on this topic on -boot. We
> rediscussed this recently on #ubuntu-arm and the discussion is on:
> most of the discussion is about moving the logic in update-initramfs'
> run_bootloader() -- at least the flash-kernel part -- in a new config
> similar to kenrel-img.conf's postinst_hook.
> I think it would be possible to make flash-kernel calls trigger a new
> flash-kernel trigger which would do the real update; the flash-kernel
> postinst, update-initramfs calls, and kernel installation would all
> cause this trigger to be activated, and the flash-kernel would only
> have to ensure that the update-initramfs trigger if any has completed.
> Am I missing something? Does this make any sense?
> Thanks for comments,
> Loïc Minier
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org