On Monday 20 December 2010 11:47:39 Loïc Minier wrote: > Hey > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > I think it's a bad idea as the Packages file will grow a lot. If you > > don't have enough disk space to install the package, then don't - you > > don't have to anyway. You can simply download and extract the .deb to > > get the binary you want and then flash it. > > ATM you actually do have to install the u-boot package for the > "mkimage" command; I think this command should definitely be split out. > This is split out before and was merged into the u-boot package for some strange reason ... anyway, what you are proposing is something I already tried to propose this summer and I was chased away by Clint. I even had the patch for the package ready, but it was a waste of my time. > > Back to the meat of this bug: > * yes the u-boot images are big and would waste space; 400 K is still > not negligible in today's standard, and the number of boards is going > to increase as Debian supports more SoC; probably some megs of data > if you try to include this in the device's image > * I don't think people ought to get their bootloader updated after an > apt-get upgrade, that would be too risky and that's not very useful; > the bootloader should pretty much never be uploaded unless you need a > major new feature (e.g. you're changing your rootfs type or > something), and that should be done by the admin manually IMO. > This means that the bootloader doesn't need to be installed on > target devices; it's only useful to create d-i media or as a service > to users who need a Debian-built binary to update the bootloader on > their machines (manually). > > > I propose we make this bug a request to split mkimage out though, as > currently u-boot needs to be installed for flash-kernel to work, and > that is indeed wasteful. > > Cheers,
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
