[ resending with the correct address ] On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:03:32 -0400, James Westby <james.wes...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:26:46 -0400, James Westby <james.wes...@linaro.org> > 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 the linaro > > images. I think that having the images be useful by themselves has lots > > of benefits. > > > > - Being able to quickly spin up an image in QEMU makes for easier > > testing. > > - Requiring a hardware pack for every operation will make some things > > more tedious. > > - If everything in a hardware pack becomes more consolidated then > > hardware packs probably become less useful. > - Not having a flag day where suddenly our images aren't installable > and hwpack-install has to work well, and before that date we can't > test hwpack-install on the images we produce. > > Having not had anyone convince me that stripping our images is the right > thing to do I have carried on attempting to write the spec without > requiring this. There will be a few issues, such as ensuring that the > kernel we want is the one that boots, but we have that problem on hwpack > upgrades anyway, so it doesn't go away by stripping the images. > > I have > > 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 > particular there are still a number of TODOs in the spec where I don't > know how to proceed, but I believe that none of those block us starting > implementation of other parts. > > Is the current status quo to create specs under the "linaro" project on > Launchpad? I'll create a spec for this so that we can track work items > for it. > > Thanks, > > James >
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
