[fedora-arm] Ok, my ARM machine works quite well, but how can I help you?

[Jiri Pirko]

Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:19:29AM CEST, kedars at marvell.com wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jiri Pirko [mailto:jpirko at redhat.com]
>> Sent: 25 June 2009 20:58
>> To: Peter Lemenkov
>> Cc: fedora-arm at redhat.com; Kedar Sovani
>> Subject: Re: [fedora-arm] Ok, my ARM machine works quite well,
>> but how can I help you?
>> 
>> Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 05:18:29PM CEST, lemenkov at gmail.com wrote:
>> >Hello!
>> >
>> >2009/6/25 Jiri Pirko <jpirko at redhat.com>:
>> >
>> >>>> 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.
>