Mike's actual problem
lpotter at trolltech.com
Thu Aug 7 00:47:10 CEST 2008
Andy Green wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Hi -
> The discussion about where to put a git hash for versioning is too
> esoteric to get passionate about in itself. I woke up this morning
> realizing what the actual issue is here.
> Mike has been putting out some kernel binaries on his page for a while,
> just the monolithic kernel. Until now, that has generally worked out OK
> because his sources are presumably largely tracking our git and his
> kernel binary re-used the modules installed by our packages.
> However once we properly protect modules against being used by a
> different kernel, as I propose and would like to see happen, Mike and
> others will be unable to ad-hoc issue third party binary kernels as
> before due to all the extra modules being missing.
Why are you going to do that?
Mike would not have to create his own kernel+patches if things he fixes were getting fixed in the
mainline openmoko kernel.
> What we could do with is a short and sweet way to build kernel
> *packages* described without taking on the whole OE experience. The
> kernel should be pretty amenable to this because it has no dependencies
> on the rest of the target side during build. Like, "wget this bb file
> from here, and run xyz in the kernel dir, you will find an opkg left there".
> Mike would then be able to go on with his kernel binaries on an even
> footing with ours, as packages, and I guess his objection to protecting
> the modules against use by wrong kernel will disappear.
Lorn 'ljp' Potter
Software Engineer, Systems Group, Trolltech, a Nokia company
More information about the devel