On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:03 -0400, James Westby wrote:
[...]
>
> > 4. add support for installing hwpacks in linaro-media-create
>
> Salgado was working on this, but has been out for a few days. It's
> obviously important to be able to install.
>
> Guilherme, are you happy to continue working on
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:16:15AM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > Is it intended that pre-release hwpacks will be long-lived? I expected
> > the same rules to apply as to pre-release images: ephemeral objects
> > used during development that would be replaced at release time by images
> > buil
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:14:04 -0700, Steve Langasek
wrote:
> Is it intended that pre-release hwpacks will be long-lived? I expected the
> same rules to apply as to pre-release images: ephemeral objects used during
> development that would be replaced at release time by images built from the
> fi
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:11:05 -0400, James Westby
wrote:
> When we discussed it on IRC the other day I thought we had consensus
> that we should do this more automatically, including all dependencies,
> and having a way to specify one or more packages as a "baseline" that
> can be assumed to be in
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:53:57 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, James Westby
> wrote:
> > Inclusion of dependencies isn't implemented yet, so these hwpacks aren't
> > going to be usable as snapshots we can come back to yet. If that's
> > really important then I can ha
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Steve Langasek
wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 05:11:19PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
>> A further thought occurred to me the other day.
>
>> I assume that we have to put the source packages in the hwpack too, for
>> at least the packages with some G
Hi James,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 05:11:19PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> A further thought occurred to me the other day.
> I assume that we have to put the source packages in the hwpack too, for
> at least the packages with some GPL code. Given that hwpacks also serve
> as a snapshot of the arch
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:59:42 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:11 PM, James Westby
> wrote:
> > I assume that we have to put the source packages in the hwpack too, for
> ...
> > Knowing which packages to include source for will be tricky, so I would
> > implement this as
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:11 PM, James Westby wrote:
> I assume that we have to put the source packages in the hwpack too, for
...
> Knowing which packages to include source for will be tricky, so I would
> implement this as source for all of them, at least to start with.
Right, feels like a goo
A further thought occurred to me the other day.
I assume that we have to put the source packages in the hwpack too, for
at least the packages with some GPL code. Given that hwpacks also serve
as a snapshot of the archive, we can't rely on a pointer to the original
archive to serve the purpose.
Kn
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:35:05 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> headless is already available and can already be used for testing
> (even if omap3 is in there atm). The other heads are failing to build
> because we don't have hardware packs yet.
>
> Now that you say that we won't hook up hwpack-creat
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:03:16 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Sure: with this change we can produce our images without any kernel
> whatsoever (e.g. as those are coming from hwpacks).
Ok, we're back to this again. I still haven't heard any convincing
arguments for why that is a good idea. Could you
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:50:29 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> If the separate lexbuilder backend deployment causes any issues we can
> also just hook this up to live-helper so we produce the hwpacks in the
> headless run.
I've used hudson to build them for now, as it took just a few minutes as
I ha
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:08:19 -0400, James Westby
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:03:16 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > Sure: with this change we can produce our images without any kernel
> > whatsoever (e.g. as those are coming from hwpacks).
>
> Ok, we're back to this again. I still haven't h
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:51:34 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, James Westby
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:35:05 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >> headless is already available and can already be used for testing
> >> (even if omap3 is in there atm). The other
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:48:52 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > Unfortunately the names change, and I don't know how to set up a
> > "current" link. However, there are stable URLs that get you most of the
> > way there, e.g.
> >
> > http://jameswestby.net:8080/view/Hardware%20Packs/job/linaro-omap3
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:59 PM, James Westby
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:51:34 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> From changelog:
>> * functions/defaults.sh:
>> + in turn allow builds without kernel flavours
>>
>> https://edge.launchpad.net/~asac/+archive/armel1/+files/live-helper_2.0%7Ea10
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, James Westby
wrote:
> Inclusion of dependencies isn't implemented yet, so these hwpacks aren't
> going to be usable as snapshots we can come back to yet. If that's
> really important then I can have that fixed today.
the important use case is really the kernel pac
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, James Westby
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:35:05 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> headless is already available and can already be used for testing
>> (even if omap3 is in there atm). The other heads are failing to build
>> because we don't have hardware packs ye
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, James Westby
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:50:29 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> You can see the hwpacks at
>
> http://jameswestby.net:8080/view/Hardware%20Packs/
awesome ... i will check those a bit later.
>
> Unfortunately the names change, and I don't know
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Scott Bambrough
wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 11:56 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Scott Bambrough
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:50 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> >> If the separate lexbuilder backend deployment caus
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 11:56 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Scott Bambrough
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:50 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >> If the separate lexbuilder backend deployment causes any issues we can
> >> also just hook this up to live-helper
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Scott Bambrough
wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:50 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> If the separate lexbuilder backend deployment causes any issues we can
>> also just hook this up to live-helper so we produce the hwpacks in the
>> headless run.
>>
> No, this sho
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:50 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> If the separate lexbuilder backend deployment causes any issues we can
> also just hook this up to live-helper so we produce the hwpacks in the
> headless run.
>
No, this shouldn't be the case. Do it right the first time, and have a
longe
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM, James Westby
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A hardware pack creation script is now available, so we can generate
> them, and the install script is close to being finished too. I have a
> lexbuidler backend that we can use later, but these things have so few
> requirements to bui
Hi,
A hardware pack creation script is now available, so we can generate
them, and the install script is close to being finished too. I have a
lexbuidler backend that we can use later, but these things have so few
requirements to build that I can do it with a cron job or something for
now.
Theref
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:13:11 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> Yes. Scott B. or Ian may have a linaro-infrastructure project or project
> group in the wings to which we should move it later if so, but don't let
> yourself get blocked for lack of a place to put it ;-)
Created:
https://bl
On 27 Aug 2010, at 19:05, James Westby wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:03:32 -0400, James Westby
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:26:46 -0400, James Westby
>> wrote:
>> Is the current status quo to create specs under the "linaro" project on
>> Launchpad? I'll create a spec for this so that we
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 02:05:30PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> > https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/UserPlatforms/Specs/10.11/HardwarePacks
> >
> > to a state where I am happy to start implementation now. Feedback on the
> > spec is still welcome, and things will still be subject to change. In
>
[ resending with the correct address ]
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:03:32 -0400, James Westby
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:26:46 -0400, James Westby
> wrote:
> > There is also one larger question, which is that I disagree that we
> > shouldn't provide anything that will go in a hardware pack in
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:06 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> 2. What is the purpose of the hwpack.deb that is mentioned in
> places?
>
> this is scotts baby i think. personally i am fine without a
> hwpack.deb. I think the idea was that configs etc. like apt source
> lines accompany
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:31:37 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Do we already have a linaro support status for packages implemented? or are
> you refering to the ubuntu style main/universe/package-set support status
> here?
I'm asking both conceptually and concretely.
In theory, how does the support
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:29 PM, James Westby wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:06:18 +0200, Alexander Sack
> wrote:
> > > 6. What are the use cases for support information?
> > >
> > >
> > We want to label hwpacks as "unsupported" or "community" so we can offer
> > them to download on snapshots.l
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:06:18 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > 6. What are the use cases for support information?
> >
> >
> We want to label hwpacks as "unsupported" or "community" so we can offer
> them to download on snapshots.linaro.org while sending a clear message that
> those are not officia
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:52:47 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> I thought a bit more about this and i think the single hwpacks policy makes
> the "clean up" part mentioned in last sentence of user story 2 easier to
> implement.
Right.
Maybe we want hardware pack types in the future, so that you can
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:21 PM, James Westby wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:14:18 +0200, Alexander Sack
> wrote:
> > Yeah. hwpacks should have a unique id in their meta info. In that way you
> > can figure this.
>
> No, what I mean is that we may want to have any hardware pack containing
> a ke
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:14:18 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Yeah. hwpacks should have a unique id in their meta info. In that way you
> can figure this.
No, what I mean is that we may want to have any hardware pack containing
a kernel to supercede any other containing a kernel. Or instead we migh
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:14 PM, James Westby wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:06:18 +0200, Alexander Sack
> wrote:
> > in theory yes, but practically I don't expect this to become a major use
> > case. If it's easier assuming that there is just one in the first phase,
> > lets do that.
>
> The bi
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:06:18 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> in theory yes, but practically I don't expect this to become a major use
> case. If it's easier assuming that there is just one in the first phase,
> lets do that.
The big problem I see is knowing which hwpacks should supercede all
other
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:26 PM, James Westby wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Scott asked me to take a look at the hwpack spec:
>
> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/UserPlatforms/Specs/10.11/HardwarePacks
>
> I took the liberty of editing it somewhat to make the definition of a
> hardware pack clearer, and
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010, James Westby wrote:
> 3. Do we want to be able to pull in new versions of a hwpack on
> request, or should it just be a case of updating the image, with a
> hwpack-install call if you want to install a newer version that pulls
> in new packages?
This would come for f
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:49:58 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:26:46PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> > 5. What are the use cases for tags? I can only see X/no X in the spec.
>
> One other I see is OpenMAX + Gstreamer versus pure Gstreamer versus
> OpenCORE. I gu
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:15:31 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand your question, though. Are you asking if
> packages could be excluded at hardware-pack install time or at creation
> time?
I mean at install time.
The only use case I have seen so far is --no-X. That'
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 05:54:20PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:49:58 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:26:46PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> > > 5. What are the use cases for tags? I can only see X/no X in the spec.
> >
> > One other
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:37:43PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> I would like to know of any other use cases though.
What about the OpenMAX plus gstreamer versus gstreamer versus OpenCORE
(plus OpenMAX) use case I mentioned?
> Using X to mean x.org and an arbitrary board is mighty confusing :-)
O
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:02:46 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
> What about the OpenMAX plus gstreamer versus gstreamer versus OpenCORE
> (plus OpenMAX) use case I mentioned?
Yes, sorry, I forgot that one.
Could you expand a little in to what packages would be involved, which
of those would
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:26:46PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
> 5. What are the use cases for tags? I can only see X/no X in the spec.
One other I see is OpenMAX + Gstreamer versus pure Gstreamer versus
OpenCORE. I guess the generic use case I see there is being able to
identify what sort of sof
Hi all,
Scott asked me to take a look at the hwpack spec:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/UserPlatforms/Specs/10.11/HardwarePacks
I took the liberty of editing it somewhat to make the definition of a
hardware pack clearer, and remove some contradiction in the
implementation suggestions.
I ha
48 matches
Mail list logo
