On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:16:15AM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
Is it intended that pre-release hwpacks will be long-lived? I expected
the same rules to apply as to pre-release images: ephemeral objects
used during development that would be replaced at release time by images
built from
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:50 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
If the separate lexbuilder backend deployment causes any issues we can
also just hook this up to live-helper so we produce the hwpacks in the
headless run.
No, this shouldn't be the case. Do it right the first time, and have a
longer
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Scott Bambrough
scott.bambro...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:50 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
If the separate lexbuilder backend deployment causes any issues we can
also just hook this up to live-helper so we produce the hwpacks in the
headless
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 11:56 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Scott Bambrough
scott.bambro...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:50 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
If the separate lexbuilder backend deployment causes any issues we can
also just hook this
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Scott Bambrough
scott.bambro...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 11:56 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Scott Bambrough
scott.bambro...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:50 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
If the
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, James Westby
james.wes...@canonical.com wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:50:29 +0200, Alexander Sack a...@linaro.org wrote:
You can see the hwpacks at
http://jameswestby.net:8080/view/Hardware%20Packs/
awesome ... i will check those a bit later.
Unfortunately
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM, James Westby
james.wes...@canonical.com wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:35:05 +0200, Alexander Sack a...@linaro.org wrote:
headless is already available and can already be used for testing
(even if omap3 is in there atm). The other heads are failing to build
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:03:16 +0200, Alexander Sack a...@linaro.org wrote:
Sure: with this change we can produce our images without any kernel
whatsoever (e.g. as those are coming from hwpacks).
Ok, we're back to this again. I still haven't heard any convincing
arguments for why that is a good
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:13:11 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis k...@linaro.org
wrote:
Yes. Scott B. or Ian may have a linaro-infrastructure project or project
group in the wings to which we should move it later if so, but don't let
yourself get blocked for lack of a place to put it ;-)
Created:
[ resending with the correct address ]
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:03:32 -0400, James Westby james.wes...@canonical.com
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:26:46 -0400, James Westby james.wes...@linaro.org
wrote:
There is also one larger question, which is that I disagree that we
shouldn't provide
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 02:05:30PM -0400, James Westby wrote:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/UserPlatforms/Specs/10.11/HardwarePacks
to a state where I am happy to start implementation now. Feedback on the
spec is still welcome, and things will still be subject to change. In
On 27 Aug 2010, at 19:05, James Westby wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:03:32 -0400, James Westby james.wes...@canonical.com
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:26:46 -0400, James Westby james.wes...@linaro.org
wrote:
Is the current status quo to create specs under the linaro project on
Launchpad?
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:06 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
2. What is the purpose of the hwpack.deb that is mentioned in
places?
this is scotts baby i think. personally i am fine without a
hwpack.deb. I think the idea was that configs etc. like apt source
lines accompanying
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:14 PM, James Westby james.wes...@linaro.orgwrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:06:18 +0200, Alexander Sack a...@linaro.org
wrote:
in theory yes, but practically I don't expect this to become a major use
case. If it's easier assuming that there is just one in the first
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:52:47 +0200, Alexander Sack a...@linaro.org wrote:
I thought a bit more about this and i think the single hwpacks policy makes
the clean up part mentioned in last sentence of user story 2 easier to
implement.
Right.
Maybe we want hardware pack types in the future, so
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:29 PM, James Westby james.wes...@linaro.orgwrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:06:18 +0200, Alexander Sack a...@linaro.org
wrote:
6. What are the use cases for support information?
We want to label hwpacks as unsupported or community so we can offer
them to
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:31:37 +0200, Alexander Sack a...@linaro.org wrote:
Do we already have a linaro support status for packages implemented? or are
you refering to the ubuntu style main/universe/package-set support status
here?
I'm asking both conceptually and concretely.
In theory, how
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:15:31 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis
k...@canonical.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your question, though. Are you asking if
packages could be excluded at hardware-pack install time or at creation
time?
I mean at install time.
The only use case I have seen so far
18 matches
Mail list logo
