[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why not kernel images and other tools?


Sorry for the late answer but I've been busy with promoting Emdebian at the
linuxuser expo. (which I found a great experience, and I want to thank all the
Debian and Emdebian people who where present).

Quoting Allen Curtis <acurtis@onz.com>:

> I am interested in creating tools for embedded beyond kernel 
> configuration. This has been in the back of my mind while I try to 
> follow this thread. My idea was to investigate using Eclipse. If that 
> doesn't look viable, or grossly unpopular, look at implementing 
> something with Tk. (tcl or perl)

Well we actually have those now. These are adapted versions of the standard
Debian tools.Look at Stag for more information about them. We should start
building base any time now. Once we got the documentation right and the wiki
running. They are command line, however the wrappers may need to be improved.

> Another question that I have is regarding package configuration 
> maintenance in an embedded system. Has anyone thought about this?

Most of it should be done by the original Debian maintainer ( in the end, long
term goal). For the moment we are planning to get a wiki online with a package
wishlist and a detailed howto. Everybody should be able to edit the wish-list
and taking up the task of adapting a package to Emdebian. For the moment we are
going for the proposed scheme of a seperate emdebian subdir with symlinks to all
files shared with the normal debian part. And different rules, control en
scripts (postinst, preinst,...) As these don't change very much maintaing them
should be not to hard.(However making doubles is not really the ideal way, it
has the advantage of keeping emdebian and debian changes apart. This simplyfies
any eventual tool-change and make it easier to get it accepted in Debian proper.

> On Apr 19, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Henrion Benjamin wrote:
> > Why not maintaining kernel images inside emdebian?

As you know each platform is different. So we should be maintaing hundreds of
kernels. This is really impractical. Some "should be okay" sources however could
 be useful.

> > I prefer to load an already and tested kernel of a emdeb package, then
> > loosing time to compile one myself.
> >
> > It could reduce time of market (or time to make the system working).

Loosing less time on the userland should also help a lot.

> > It could be great to have also some standard tools to generate custom
> > flash images from booters+kernel+romfs.

This could be a good idea. But then again it should be very flexible because of
different memory maps,etc ... on different boards.

> > Is someone motivated to package those booters (uboot, isolinux, etc...)
> > in debian?
> >
> > Howto package those booters?
> >
> > Which others booters do you use?

It is a good idea to package them, but I do not know how, and I believe they
will be very complex packages to allow people to compile and adapt these
bootloaders to their system.



| Philippe De Swert -GNU/linux - uClinux freak-     
| Stag developer http://stag.mind.be/ 
| Emdebian developer: http://www.emdebian.org 
| Please do not send me documents in a closed format. (*.doc,*.xls,*.ppt)   
| Use the open alternatives. (*.pdf,*.ps,*.html,*.txt)   
| Why? http://pallieter.is-a-geek.org:7832/~johan/word/english/   

Gestuurd via het webmailsysteem van het De Nayer Instituut: www.denayer.be

Reply to: