On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote: > Do all platforms flash-kernel cares for have their boot scripts > on a filesystem that supports symlinks? I know too little about > the various ARM systems in this regard, but if there are systems > among them that for example boot from a FAT partition, this would > mean they would no longer be able to boot. From looking at > bootscr.omap in the flash kernel sources I would assume that this > is at least the case for the Pandaboard.
A lot of them use a vfat partition, so symlinks are not an option. > That would indeed be nice, but it would come with a price. Would > we be willing to drop support for an existing (although not > officially Debian-supported) platform to achieve this? Copying > instead of symlinking could of course be an alternative option - > not particularly elegant but not dependent on filesystem > features. > > > BTW, the u-boot guys seem to want to converg on using either the > > extlinux config file format or the BootloaderSpec[0] as the standard > > mechanism for configuring which kernel to use. THe former would probably > > be easier to support (since we could just refactor update-extlinux out > > of the existing x86 only package). > > > [0] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/BootLoaderSpec/ > > Hm, this spec mandates that the /boot partiton must be FAT. > When looking at the discussion about Raspbian using FAT on /boot > I doubt that Debian would implement that spec. I sure hope not. That's a terrible spec. Many systems already use symlinks in /boot and you can't just arbitrarily decide that isn't allowed. Why not just declare /boot/loader should be on FAT, but leave /boot out of it. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140501145805.gc17...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
