On Saturday, 2. August 2008 22:24:19 Andy Green wrote: > Packaging issues are out of my scope, or control.
May be but we still should consider this, right ? > If nobody decided to add REQUIRES to the kernel package for the > previously monolithic Ethernet over USB modules, then we end up like > this. We can have all available REQUIRED fields activated but that wont help if the user just upgrades the kernel via dfu-util ... > I issued an RFC about it on the kernel list before it was done, > so this isn't some switch I threw in the dark while snickering. Nobody assumed the opposite. > Why does our packaging fragment the module binaries into a zillion > individual packages anyway and allow this issue? Why are the modules, > intimately tied to the monolithic kernel of the same version, not in the > same package to guarantee consistency? We have the space and it will be > a rare customer who micromanages his package set to the extent of adding > and removing module packages. AFAIK we can't solve this by packaging (at the moment). The kernel and rootfs live in different partitions and thus can be updated independently. In general I like your idea but we have to look at what we have now. I think we both agree that our current packaging is inherently broken. I would prefer to wait with those changes until we can update the kernel and the rootfs at the same time. Marek PS: I never tried to SSH in a Mass Storage device. ;-) _______________________________________________ support mailing list support@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/support