On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 05:34:05PM +0100, Gabor Juhos wrote: > > As far as i understand, the way you did it will produce both > > factory.bin files (suitable for the sysupgrade utility and the > > vendor's interface) and sysupgrade.bin (that would work only with the > > sysupgrade utility). Isn't that adding an unnecessary complexity and > > causing more confusion for the users and developers? > > I agree that this adds some complexity. However both the sysupgrade and > factory > images were provided for these boards, and if one of them disappear users will > complain about that.
Right, they might. Probably it'd be nice to write down the explicit rules somewhere once and then always refer users to them. > > Shouldn't there be established a policy regarding that? As a user i > > would prefer to have a single image (without "sysupgrade" or "factory" > > in its name) whenever possible to have only one binary for both > > usecases. > > And what should we tell to the users? > > - On board A from vendor B use the image without any suffix, but be aware that > it is only working with the sysupgrade command from OpenWrt." I think if the image is only suitable for sysupgrade it should have a -sysupgrade suffix. > - On board C from vendor D, feel free to use the image without any suffix, and > that will work with the original web interface and with OpenWrt as well. Yes, if the image has no suffix i'd expect it to be universally applicable. > - On board E from vendor F, the image with the -factory prefix must be used > from > the factory web interface, and the -sysupgrade image must be used to upgrade > an > existing OpenWrt installation. Yes. > Additionally, the fact that the factory images can be used for sysupgrade on > some boards does not mean that this will be true always. Of course, the > factory > format won't change but we might want to use a generic format for sysupgrade > on > all boards later. There were plans for that. In that case the images will start to differ so all the targets that have means to generate factory images can start generating -factory-named images plus a sysupgrade image. > > Alternatively, i'd require every target to generate both -factory and > > -sysupgrade images > > This won't happen until someone does not investigate the format of the factory > images and write a tool for them for the boards where we are not providing > factory images yet. I meant to say that this alternative proposal is to require every target to generate a sysupgrade image and (whenever possible) a factory image but if that factory image can also be used for sysupgrade they should be explicitely the same so that the developers looking through the Makefiles will never be confused about that. > > More consistency in naming is needed, imho, so i propose to decide on > > that. > > More consistency? The -factory images must be used to flash OpenWrt from the > original web interface, and the -sysupgrade images must be used to upgrade an > existing OpenWrt installation. This is quite consistent IMO. Ok, so if that's declared the policy (it's about the same as my second suggestion but i'd prefer to require sysupgrade files be copied from factory files when possible), it should be written down somewhere and all the new targets be required to adhere to it. -- Be free, use free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) software! mailto:fercer...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
