Kernel versioning [was Re: Kernel package and modules]
andy at openmoko.com
Tue Aug 5 18:11:19 CEST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| *sigh* Well, I tried. Perhaps I'm not the convincing orator
| (emailator?) that is required to present the customer-support POV.
| Further, it's unclear to whom the argument needs to be presented.
The argument needs to be presented on this list as it has been, I guess
Holger or Graeme would change the packaging. They can read this thread
and determine whether they want to manually deal with EXTRAVERSION or
set it to the git branch and head hash automatically. But I hope they
do one or the other because the invalid module loading issue is real.
| I'll figure out some means -- despite your unilateral decision -- to
| ensure that the average joe-geek who bought the phone can flash an
| experimental kernel and test it with ease, low-risk, and as small an
| effort as possible. It'll just have to be another community effort.
OK. As I said to you before, I really like the idea if you maintain
your own kernel tree where you can implement different plans. Since
we're all GPL'd, it just increases choice and maybe even information
Just a tip, base defconfig-2.6.24 / 26 itself in git already has all
critical drivers built into monolithic kernel, because that's basically
what I use and am I sat here making "experimental kernels" all day and
most of the night.
If folks want to experiment they should use that or similar config with
EXTRAVERSION set to "something" that they don't have a /lib/modules for,
one way or another, maybe by deleting or mv-ing /lib/modules if they
didn't change EXTRAVERSION.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the devel