On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 11:56 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Scott Bambrough > <scott.bambro...@linaro.org> 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 shouldn't be the case. Do it right the first time, and have a > > longer term vision in mind. A hack like Alexander proposes is just a > > waste of time and effort IMHO. > > If making a standalone hwpack backend cause delay to linaro-n cycle, > the effort to hook it up in live-helper is really worth it imo. It's > not much effort after all to put it in a lh helper script, so the > waste (if you really want to call it that way) would be well confined. > No, James and I should be able to solve the deployment problem. It would be better to concentrate on the actual hardware packs themselves and fix/improve the backend to meet our needs. The infrastructure to create and deploy an individual hardware pack now exists and needs real world testing. In order to test and shake out problems with the backend we really need several hardware packs defined.
James can help out with the mechanics of creating the hardware pack and getting them built automatically. However the contents of the hardware pack should be driven by those in Linaro defining the images we want to build. I haven't seen a relevant head to use with the hardware packs yet, and that IMHO is not an infrastructure problem. What head is available for combination with a hardware pack by linaro-media-create is available? Scott _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
