Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:19:29AM CEST, kedars@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jiri Pirko [mailto:jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: 25 June 2009 20:58 >> To: Peter Lemenkov >> Cc: fedora-arm@xxxxxxxxxx; Kedar Sovani >> Subject: Re: Ok, my ARM machine works quite well, >> but how can I help you? >> >> Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 05:18:29PM CEST, lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >Hello! >> > >> >2009/6/25 Jiri Pirko <jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > >> >>>> Also, I plan to provide instructions on how to set up >> fedora on >> >>>> my Western Digital's MyBook (and, probably, pre-built >> >>>> bootloader(s) and kernel). >> >> >> >> I want to do the same for Beagleboard. Also I'm thinking >> about adding kernel rpm >> >> directly for Beagle. Is there any activity to build board- >> specific kernels? >> > >> >Someone created pre-built kernel for SheevaPlug. That's all >> AFAIK. >> >Anyway, we should start providing them. But before, I think >> that we >> >should come to an agreement regarding common subset of kernel >> features >> >(filesystems, handware, etc). I thinkit may simplify the >> process of >> >creating rpms. >> >> Agree, but this would be very board-spacific. But e.g. config >> options for >> usb-devices etc should should be the same. >> > >The fedora kernel repository has a nice way of managing the configuration differences with a merge.pl script. Every architecture specifies only the configuration options that differ, and the rest are picked from the standard template. > >The current ARM "kernel" rpm is only a placeholder/dummy rpm which satisfies the "provides" etc. dependencies of other packages. > >How should we go about the multiple kernels approach: >1. create multiple kernel rpms for multiple boards? kernel-sheevaplug, kernel-beagle, etc.? I vote for this variant. I think we should generate as small packages as we can, not one-big-rpm-that-contains-everything. We must keep in mind we are in most cases in the embedded world :) >2. create a single kernel rpm with multiple images stored within it? >3. forget the kernel rpm, let each board have its own pre-built kernel binary available? Since anyway most of the people will probably burn the kernel separately on the flash? Hmm, I would like to have rpm. IMHO it's the clean way of doing this. Even if the rpm only "carries" the kernel and user must install it by hand. But I can imagine boards where the kernel is in the "constant" place and rpm can be used to actually install it. Jirka > >...snip... > >> >> Jirka >> > >> >-- >> >With best regards! > > >Kedar. > _______________________________________________ fedora-arm mailing list fedora-arm@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-arm
