Re: why not kernel images and other tools?
+++ Henrion Benjamin [04-04-19 17:45 +0200]:
> Why not maintaining kernel images inside emdebian?
the kernel is not generally the hard part - that's a solved problem. We need
to fix the userspace generation difficulties.
Debian-installer already has a pile of infrastructure for creating suitable
kernels, although most people just make a suitable kernel for their hardware.
We can worry about how to integrate all this later.
> I prefer to load an already and tested kernel of a emdeb package, then
> loosing time to compile one myself.
People posting tested kernels is fine, but there are an awful lot of
machines out there (400-odd for arm alone). We have more than enough to do
owwrying about userspace and tools.
> It could be great to have also some standard tools to generate custom
> flash images from booters+kernel+romfs.
modifying debootstrap might make sense here. The problem is that there are
an awful lot of 'special cases' for each bit of hardware.
> Is someone motivated to package those booters (uboot, isolinux, etc...)
> in debian?
Quite a few of them already are (the ones that supported hardware use).
> Howto package those booters?
>
> Which others booters do you use?
blob, bootldr, linloader, shoehorn.
I'm not sure Debian really needs 30-odd bootloaders, each of which is only
used on a few machines. They are trying to cut down on odd
not-generally-useful packages. It might make sense for emdebian to host some
packages bootloaders, but you'd need to show that packaging bootloaders was
actually a useful activity - it's certainly not at the top of my list.
Wookey
--
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/
Reply to: