mwester at dls.net
Sun Dec 7 22:49:32 CET 2008
Andy Green wrote:
> What it impacts is what we should test against.
Exactly my point.
> It's fine there are an
> uncontrolled number of rootfs out there with random things in, but it
> means I don't have time to test against them and rely on the users of
> the rootfs to inform about problems.
And that's exactly what we have in this case -- a report from a user.
> It looks like Jeremy is planning to be "internal tester" for kernel on
> whatever rootfs he prefers
Great. But let's not summarily dismiss the bug reports from others who
choose not to use whatever rootfs that turns out to be.
> If we ship stuff with apmd then
> "throw out the broken apmd you seem to have in your rootfs" won't do as
> a solution.
Yes, and since numerous of the distros still use apmd, I'm merely
pointing out that "throw out the broken apmd you seem to have in your
rootfs" might not be a good answer for an awful lot of the users out there.
Nobody is saying that Om needs to drop everything and make it work; I'm
just stating perhaps Om shouldn't just dismiss apmd as irrelevant, which
is the original implication.
> Does Android need APM or is this just FUD?
Android was mentioned because it is a prominent example of an external
rootfs that the Om kernel team seems to take seriously. I *do* know for
a fact that the FSO distro and the SHR distros both use apmd, and the
rootfs' with the pre-canned Qtopia and the Qt Extended rootfs' both use
apmd. I'm not sure what the Debian rootfs uses, but I believe it to be
apmd as well.
More information about the openmoko-kernel