on 14.10.2013 17:24, KP Kirchdörfer wrote: > Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2013, 00:19:52 schrieb Erich Titl: >> on 12.10.2013 19:43, KP Kirchdörfer wrote: >>> Hi Erich; >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2013, 10:32:02 schrieb Erich Titl: >>>> HI Folks >>>> >>>> I have fought a bit with my new 5.01 installation on a WRAP and I am >>>> still wrestling to get it up and running the way I want. >>>> >>>> I have a few requests for future packaging >>>> >>>> - Could we refrain from placing the modules in a flat directory, it >>>> makes the modules directory horribly unreadable and I don't see any >>>> benefit.> >>> And what is your proposal? >> >> Keep the structure as is after compiling >> >>> Currently it does have the benefit that it works to add modules without >>> thinking where to add (scp to /lib/modules is good enough), that hardware >>> detection knows where to place modules and backing up modules is also >>> easy. >> >> Mhhh... ist that dependent on the tree structure? > > Detection works with the tree structure in the modules tarball, but storing > the modules will be affetced. > > If that is changed I think we do need to rework and test > buildpacket.pl > apkg (for saving modules in moddb)
I am using it with a tree structure, works fine > hardware detection (see above) No idea how it was implemented. > loading modules from modules.conf Mhhhh.... I thought that worked, but it is easy to test. > > and test if packages like shorewall work... Shorewall does not even start on my site as some perl modules are missing. But that is another story. > > So this will be IMHO a huge task. Maybe, maybe not. > > >>> So if one wants change to the modules directory layout, some things need >>> to be considered - and I do not see a real benefit to invest that amount >>> of work. BTW What exactly is your pb with "readibility"? do a ls -l in /lib/modules and tall me if you see a*xxx without scrolling. The Linux kernel developers use a structure, my server uses a structure, why doesn't LEAF? > > Understand. But the amount of unneeded modules is not related to a flat or > tree > structure. Either way you'll have to find a way to find and remove them, and > it > will not be easier with a tree structure. Sure, I can remove whole directories. > > David explained in the wiki, how to modify initmod (and initrd if you want) > from within a LEAF box. This also should work on your build machine. I know how to do it, I do it with every recent release. It's just work. > >>>> - Could we make a version with minimal modules in initmod? You may think >>>> this is unpractical, but for myself I found that in initmod there is no >>>> natsemi driver so most of the modules there are not needed. Whatever you >>>> choose It will be the wrong choice most of the time, but it is >>>> overloading small platforms. >>>> ... > > > ok, but then how can we distribute that changes? > Currently we have toolchains for an architecture (i386, x86_64,arm-versatile) > and "subarchs" (in the case of i386: i686 i486 geode). > For each toolchain and it's subarchs we create seperate images. One of these > is called GEODE, and while this one is closely related to the PC Engines Alix > box, it is a bit more generic - it provides modules that aren't needed to run > LEAF Bering-uClibc on an Alix board. We could probably easily do that by adding more targets in the buildtool.conf files for initrd. > > So far it's a clear way. Don't know how a "to tool to create a specfic > initmod" > can lead to something distributable? > > Isn't such a tool only handy, if someone is able to use git, the toolchain, > buildtool etc? I don't think it needs any access to the toolchain. We build all the modules anyway, it only needs a way to combine them. > If so, I think it would be easier to read Davids wiki chapter and to play > with > pxeboot - at least for the very first boot and installtion on a CF. > It would be a way, but how can you be sure your box is accessible after a pxeboot if the nat driver is missing and the serial line is dead because of a forgotten commented entry in /etc/inittab? This is the _reality_ right now with the serial distribution. >>>> - I may be horribly old fashioned, but how many of you are really using >>>> IPv6. Despite all the ballyhoo it is still not widely used (in Europe) >>>> and IMHO it should be an option. The future may prove me wrong. >>> ... > > At the beginning I had a tunnel to EricH, who did most of the work for 2.0, > later I started use sixxs.net until today. Until now it may sound academic as > well, since I haven't seen any IPv6-only site yet and it's still a tunnel > via > IPv4. > But if I'd not be too lazy to deal with VDSL (need a new modem, and a cheap > one that fit my needs is not easy to find, but thats something for another > thread), I'd have a dual stack right now from my Telco. > OK, my ISP is not offering IPV6 and will probably not in the next decade. I have heard all the IPv6 stuff for about two decades by now and I am certain that I will not get a connetion within my lifetime, the reason being that few people really know how to route that stuff, just imagine a fast flying node which connects to different wireless stations every few milliseconds. The routing updates will be mind boggling. On top of that, those addresses are really only machine readable, human beings are overwhelmed. cheers Erich
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
