On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 05:04:52PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Copying Joey and maks, who initially had the discussion about adding a > flash-kernel call to update-initramfs. I hope they can comment on > your proposal. > > * Loïc Minier <l...@dooz.org> [2009-05-02 21:14]: > > On Sat, May 02, 2009, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > This is a long-standing problem (introduced a few months ago). The > > > problem is that flash-kernel will add a postinst hook for the kernel, > > > but nowadays update-initramfs will call flash-kernel directly. > > > > I was wondering whether we could take steps to move flash-kernel to a > > trigger; I'm aware of earlier discussion on this topic on -boot. We > > rediscussed this recently on #ubuntu-arm and the discussion is on: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/365053 > > http://launchpadlibrarian.net/25876740/ubuntu-arm.txt > > most of the discussion is about moving the logic in update-initramfs' > > run_bootloader() -- at least the flash-kernel part -- in a new config > > similar to kenrel-img.conf's postinst_hook.
kernel-img.conf is getting deprecated as it appartains to nobody. read those discussion some days ago but failed to see an obvious gain. > > I think it would be possible to make flash-kernel calls trigger a new > > flash-kernel trigger which would do the real update; the flash-kernel > > postinst, update-initramfs calls, and kernel installation would all > > cause this trigger to be activated, and the flash-kernel would only > > have to ensure that the update-initramfs trigger if any has completed. > > > > Am I missing something? Does this make any sense? did you read latest initramfs-tools git, we pass the version to flash-kernel does this avoid aboves complications? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
