Re: d-i and iBooks
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:13:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Sven Luther schrieb:
>
> >On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:06:56PM +0200, Thorsten Sauter wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>I guess thats the best solution to put all needed images in one udeb.
> >>The makefile can copy all images into different directories on the
> >>cdrom-image.
> >>
> We will need some additional logic in the makefile. You have to list
> all the possible kernel image names in build/config/arch/linux-powerpc
> and adjust the makefile logic in build/make/arch/linux-powerpc
That would be the d-i makefiles ?
> >Ok, i will see if i can do that, altough the real problem is to build
> >more than just the vmlinux and vmlinux.coff images. I guess we could get
> >the images directly out of the arch/ppc/boot/images :
> >
> >
> Sven, have a look at how Herbert Xu creates kernel udebs with
> kernel-image-2.4.20-1-i386-udeb. He has an additional source package
> for the udebs, which depens on the kernel-image. IMHO this is the best
> way to package kernel udebs. You don't need an extra kernel build for the
> udebs if you do it that way (even if kernel udebs change but the kernel
> stays the same).
Ok, i will have a look. The real problem for ppc though is that there
are various subarches, which build different kind of images including
the subarch specific bootloaders. I don't think this problem exists on
i386.
I suppose the udeb-source package gets the kernel-image package, and
extracts the needed kernel image or something from it to build the udeb ?
> I'm not sure, but I think it could be better if these kernel udeb source
> packages would be maintained by debian-boot and not the individual kernel
> maintainers.
Mmm, i would have to look at the source udeb in question before i can
give my opinion on this.
> Like that we would have better control over the udebs and don't have to
> bother
> the kernel maintainers every time the content of some udeb changes. We could
> also provide more unified udebs across all architectures. But I don't
> want to stand
> on the feets of the kernel maintainers. If they prefer to do this job,
> do it.
The problem is that the kernel maintainer for a given arch may have a
better knowledge of what modules build or fail to build on said arch or
other such problems, does he not ? Not really speaking about me, since i
don't own powermac hardware, and have the impression that most powermac
people use the benh kernels instead anyway.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: