gta02, 2007.2: state of upgrades

Marek Lindner marek at
Sat Aug 2 21:02:15 CEST 2008

On Saturday, 2. August 2008 22:24:19 Andy Green wrote:
> Packaging issues are out of my scope, or control.

May be but we still should consider this, right ?

> If nobody decided to add REQUIRES to the kernel package for the
> previously monolithic Ethernet over USB modules, then we end up like
> this.  

We can have all available REQUIRED fields activated but that wont help if the 
user just upgrades the kernel via dfu-util ...

> I issued an RFC about it on the kernel list before it was done, 
> so this isn't some switch I threw in the dark while snickering.

Nobody assumed the opposite.

> Why does our packaging fragment the module binaries into a zillion
> individual packages anyway and allow this issue?  Why are the modules,
> intimately tied to the monolithic kernel of the same version, not in the
> same package to guarantee consistency?  We have the space and it will be
> a rare customer who micromanages his package set to the extent of adding
> and removing module packages.

AFAIK we can't solve this by packaging (at the moment). The kernel and rootfs 
live in different partitions and thus can be updated independently.
In general I like your idea but we have to look at what we have now. I think 
we both agree that our current packaging is inherently broken. I would prefer 
to wait with those changes until we can update the kernel and the rootfs at 
the same time.


PS: I never tried to SSH in a Mass Storage device.  ;-)

More information about the support mailing list