On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 19:09 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:54:29PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > > > The current test kernel is just a stock F15 kernel with a few config > > changes, and a single patch to fig a power regulation bug. I think it > > won't be too long before we can ask to get an official subpackage of the > > main Fedora kernel to carry these bits rather than the interim test > > status they have at the moment. But none of this was really why I sent > > the mail :) We'll get to a point where Fedora ARM can use a single > > standard kernel binary in due course, but until then (and for other use > > cases) I think there's value in perhaps considering having a fake > > provides kernel subpackage for those systems that need "kernel" deps but > > aren't going to or cannot run the stock Fedora kernel. > > I'm clearly misunderstanding. If you have your own kernel images, why do > you need the fake ones? Ah, ok. The point is that we can't support every target yet[0] and are focusing e.g. on OMAP3/4 (BeagleBoard and PandaBoard) in the test kernel available so far. For everyone else, it's desired to have something that satisfies RPM about kernel deps and allows things like dracut to install. All of this works great once the fake deps are in place - I've a system booting with root encrypted LVM with dracut on F13 for example, but the kernel itself is for Freescale iMX5 and not in RPM format yet. Jon. [0] Existing ARM kernels are hard to build generically as you know. This is changing and we'll be at a point sooner than later where many of the major targets we care about can be supported in a single kernel image. _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
