On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 16:28 +0200, Karsten Merker wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:43:14AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 08:36 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > > > I think it would be better to put the actual kernel/initrd path (i.e. > > > with the version suffix) directly into the boot.scr rather than > > > creating > > > a link to the kernel just to launch it with. > > > > > > I'd also like to see boot.scr-$version as the actual file and boot.scr > > > as a link to the latest (with f-k creating boot.scr-$version for all > > > installed versions). That's probably a separate project though > > Do all platforms flash-kernel cares for have their boot scripts > on a filesystem that supports symlinks?
Ah yes. Well, that means it has to be a copy for those then I guess. But for systems which are capable of booting from a normal extfs /boot I think we should be doing away with this idea of mounting a magic partition and just setting things up in the actual /boot properly. > > BTW, the reason for this is that it would make it somewhat easier to > > fallback to an older kernel on error, since you could just load and > > source boot.scr-$version. > > That would indeed be nice, but it would come with a price. Would > we be willing to drop support for an existing (although not > officially Debian-supported) platform to achieve this? Copying > instead of symlinking could of course be an alternative option - > not particularly elegant but not dependent on filesystem > features. I think copying is fine given the constraints, so you would end up with boot.scr-$version1 boot.scr-$version2 and boot.scr which was a copy of the latest one. I'd also be fine with only giving systems which can boot from the actual /boot the benefit of this sort of flexibility. > > 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 think that is derived from the use of FAT for the system boot partition on EFI. I suppose it is supportable using the same technique as flash-kernel uses of copying stuff to a FAT partition which is separate to /boot. Ian. -- 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/1398956631.22521.9.ca...@kazak.uk.xensource.com
