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

Re: why not kernel images and other tools?

In message <[🔎] 20040423124853.GJ17097@knossos.aleph1.co.uk>
          Wookey <wookey@aleph1.co.uk> wrote:

> +++ Henrion Benjamin [04-04-19 17:45 +0200]:

> > 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.

debootstrap's job is to simply construct filesystems from package
files, so I don't really think it belongs in there.  It's a
debian-installer issue, if anything.

> 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.

There might be a call for a monolithic ARM boolloader package which
contains all these things, knows how to access flash, etc, etc.   It's
also a big maintenance job, if it was done at all given the typically
small user base of any given ARM platform.

Peter Naulls - peter@chocky.org        | http://www.chocky.org/
The RISC OS Browser Issue - http://www.chocky.org/unix/browser.html

Reply to: