On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:42 AM, David A. Marlin <dmar...@redhat.com> wrote: > Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >> In general pretty good - they work well. However there are a few >> problems I encountered: >> >> (1) There's no source for the boot scripts. I think you should put >> the source along side the binaries, in /boot/uboot. I ended up using >> 'strings' and reconstructing them. >> > > Agreed, the source for the script should be added. >> >> (2) The sda boot script works fine, however the mmc boot script fails. >> 'fatload mmc 0:1 ...' should be 'fatload mmc 1:1 ...' (in both places). >> > > It worked as provided for me (fatload mmc 0:1). Could this be device > dependent? > >> (3) If you have both images installed, then it boots one of them at >> random, because it boots from 'root=LABEL=rootfs' which picks one of >> the labelled root devices at random. >> >> This is not a completely stupid configuration: you need to do this if >> you're booting from a USB key and copying the mmc image to the >> internal drive. At some point you'll have a trimslice with both the >> sda image and the mmc image. Probably better to use UUIDs, or to have >> different labels. >> > > I think he was going for consistency across images (change as little as > possible) and to support copying the image to an internal drive, as you > mentioned. Would using UUIDs work in this scenario? If so, what would need > to be done (if anything) besides transferring the image (via 'dd')?
Presumably it would be as simple as running blkid(8) and applying the UUID when the image is put on internal storage. Perhaps the LABEL could be used in the USB case, but UUID for the internal storage case? > I'm working on creating disk images using lorax/anaconda, and have modeled > much of the configuration from Brendan's scripts, so any tips are > appreciated. > Look forward to seeing this progress. -- -Jon _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
