Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2013, 00:19:52 schrieb Erich Titl: > on 12.10.2013 19:43, KP Kirchdörfer wrote: > > 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? > > Keep the structure as is after compiling > > > 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. > > Mhhh... ist that dependent on the tree structure?
Detection works with the tree structure in the modules tarball, but storing the modules will be affetced. If that is changed I think we do need to rework and test buildpacket.pl apkg (for saving modules in moddb) hardware detection (see above) loading modules from modules.conf and test if packages like shorewall work... So this will be IMHO a huge task. > > 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"? > > Multiple pages of unneeded modules Understand. But the amount of unneeded modules is not related to a flat or tree structure. Either way you'll have to find a way to find and remove them, and it will not be easier with a tree structure. David explained in the wiki, how to modify initmod (and initrd if you want) from within a LEAF box. This also should work on your build machine. (http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/leaf/index.php?title=Bering-uClibc_5.x_-_User_Guide_-_Advanced_Topics_-_Modifying_initrd.lrp) > >> - 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 will, as soon as I get the #@%&$£ toolchain running. The prerequisites > are a royal pain in the butt. > > > 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 tried that a year ago, but was stopped by the multiple platform move > then. Calling a platform GEODE does not assert that we are using the > correct NIC driver and Andrew war right, it does not need another > platform. It needs a tool to create a specific initrd. ok, but then how can we distribute that changes? Currently we have toolchains for an architecture (i386, x86_64,arm-versatile) and "subarchs" (in the case of i386: i686 i486 geode). For each toolchain and it's subarchs we create seperate images. One of these is called GEODE, and while this one is closely related to the PC Engines Alix box, it is a bit more generic - it provides modules that aren't needed to run LEAF Bering-uClibc on an Alix board. So far it's a clear way. Don't know how a "to tool to create a specfic initmod" can lead to something distributable? Isn't such a tool only handy, if someone is able to use git, the toolchain, buildtool etc? If so, I think it would be easier to read Davids wiki chapter and to play with pxeboot - at least for the very first boot and installtion on a CF. > >> - 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. > > Again, it is something that diverts me, but then. I have not had a > chance to talk to any IPv6 platform at all and I _assume_ no one else > outside of academia and possibly some specialized ISP in switzerland has > had that chance. How do you guys talk to IPv6? At the beginning I had a tunnel to EricH, who did most of the work for 2.0, later I started use sixxs.net until today. Until now it may sound academic as well, since I haven't seen any IPv6-only site yet and it's still a tunnel via IPv4. But if I'd not be too lazy to deal with VDSL (need a new modem, and a cheap one that fit my needs is not easy to find, but thats something for another thread), I'd have a dual stack right now from my Telco. 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
