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? 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. 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"? > - 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. > > - It might be practical to provide a small tool to build a customized > initmod from the modules tarball. Autodetection is a fine idea if you > have memory to spare. The upside of all the distros which are targeting > a single platform is that they can and do customize their kernel and > thus can live with a very small footprint. > > - I suggest to add a few pseudo targets to the build process, which do > not require a recompile of the kernel but a rearrangement of initrd and > initmod ... like WRAP, ALIX, hopefully soon something like TP-xxx. I might be wrong, but to summarize the answer to three notes above, I's suggest you may have a look how we provide a i486/i686/geode-based versions from the same toolchain. I do agree with you that the default initmod is bloated, I see modules in the geode version, which are usually not needed. Therefor it might be a solution to add a new target (wrap) in addition to i486/i686/geode and to improve the default initmod creation to remove/add what's needed for a variant. > - 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. While IPv6 generated a lot of noise before, it's adoption seems to be more or less seamless. I've read that some ISP/Telcos started to enable IPv6 for new accounts without further notice. We've added and enabled IPv6 support about ten years ago with Bering-uClibc 2.0 - why should we make it an option just at the time, our work bears it fruits? I'd rather like to make it as useful as possible. kp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
