On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 20:30 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 7 February 2011 19:53, Guilherme Salgado > <guilherme.salg...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Ok, so ISTM that to keep this solution working we'll need to do > > something like running qemu-arm-static with no arguments and parse its > > output for the version string. Unless there's another way to easily > > trigger the bug without running something inside the chroot (I don't > > want to wait until we have the chroot ready to find out that the > > existing qemu-arm-static doesn't work). > > You could run a static ARM binary under qemu-arm-static -- > that would not require a chroot. But I don't think we really want > to get into the business of doing a pile of tests at runtime.
Indeed, I wouldn't want to go down that route either. > My vote would be for: > * packaged versions of l-m-c should just use dependencies > to enforce a working version > * unpackaged versions are assumed to be used by people > who know what they're doing But even them usually have no clue what that qemu error is about (or that a newer version has it fixed), and the fact that we keep seeing reports on IRC/mailing lists should be a good indication that we're not doing a great job at communicating that a certain version is required. > * l-m-c shouldn't try to install anything at runtime I think it should not install automatically, but I think detecting missing dependencies at runtime and prompting the user for installation is a reasonable thing to do and plenty of users would certainly appreciate it. -- Guilherme Salgado <https://launchpad.net/~salgado>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
