On 3/20/2011 6:58 AM, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 20 2011, Daniel Drake wrote:> >> 1. Is this approach a good idea? > > Sounds great to me. > >> 2. Are we bothered by a misleading WARNING message appearing at the >> end of the flashing process for those running on old/current firmware? >> (a firmware update would fix this in future) > > I expect it'll cause people to report it to us or OLPCA as an error, yeah. > Am I right in thinking that a .zd is actually just a signed forth script?
Actually it's the zsp that is signed, as a proxy for the much larger zd. So the patch needs to be in the zsp. The desire for the patch to apply both in secure and non-secure modes greatly complicates the situation. Maybe we should have a flag day. > Could we patch the misleading behavior inside the generated .zd, and would > that be a good idea? > > - Chris. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
