Jeff Kletsky <l...@allycomm.com> [2019-05-20 20:42:16]:
> Having spent quite a bit of time today thinking about the impact of
> board-name changes, I can see use cases where the running system doesn't
> know a priori what the range of acceptable tar-dir values are.
Well it makes me wonder, why you just don't do following:
platform_check_image() {
return 0
}
As the image is already checked with fwtool_check_image metadata based check
which should be probably good enough in order to lift any other additional
checks. Of course, just in case your platform has enabled metadata checking,
which in case of ath79 is true.
> Take the case where `mfgr,board-name` gets a new, compatible variant,
> `mfgr,board-name-special-purpose`. If you're running `mfgr,board-name`, a
> strict check for `mfgr_board-name` would fail, even though the
> sysupgrade-tar was applicable. This kind of board-compatibility check should
> arguably be done with image metadata, either or both appended or in the
> CONTROL section.
BOARD_NAME := something
SUPPORTED_DEVICES += something
-- ynezz
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
