Le 20/09/2013 17:09, Alexander Graf a écrit : > > Am 20.09.2013 um 09:56 schrieb Guillaume Gardet <[email protected]>: > >> Hi, >> >> it seems that panda and beagle legacy support (I mean non Device Tree >> support) will be dropped more or less quickly. >> To prepare openSUSE for the switch, I made dtb-omap3-beagle and >> dtb-omap4-panda packages in my home repo. Where should I submit them? >> openSUSE:Factory:ARM, or a devel project? >> Moreover, I made those packages 'noarch' type since DTB is not arch specific >> but it would also make sense to make them 'armv7' arch type since it is only >> used on armv7 boards. >> >> Instead of making a package for each board, another way would be to build >> all DTB supported by our kernel version (using 'make dtbs' while building >> linux kernel, for each flavour), but DTB may be removed from kernel sources >> since they should not be kernel specific. >> >> >> What is your opinion? > It is a pretty tough call. IIUC the kernel guys want to move the dts's out of > the kernel tree sometime soon, so having them separate makes sense. Whether > this should be one rpm that rpm "provide"s each dtb contained in it or it's > separate rpms I don't know. I am leaning towards seperate rpms, but I guess > whoever implements it wins.
Ok. Having separate RPM for each board should be better to not pollute /boot partition with lots of DTBs. > > As for architecture, we definitely want to limit the installable scope. I > don't want to see panda dtbs installable in my aarch64 system. Can we do that > with a noarch rpm? No, 'noarch' is compatible with all architectures. So, to limit installable scope, we should use ExclusiveArch armv7*. Technically speaking, it should be a noarch package, but it should not hurt if we make them armv7 packages. ;) Guillaume > > > Alex > >> Guillaume >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected] >> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
