[Community] [Gta04-owner] Report on QtMoko
H. Nikolaus Schaller
hns at goldelico.com
Wed Jun 15 13:29:57 CEST 2016
> Am 15.06.2016 um 13:07 schrieb Josua Mayer <josua.mayer97 at gmail.com>:
> Am 15.06.2016 um 06:45 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller:
>>> Am 15.06.2016 um 00:33 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>:
>>> [replying to community list only]
>>> Quoting Josua Mayer (2016-06-14 16:41:23)
>>>> I intended to make actual debs available, but I have yet to find time
>>>> uploading these huge things. For the moment packages will have to be
>>>> built from source, as to the instructions in the new repositories linkd
>>>> 1) Kernel: http://projects.goldelico.com/p/qtmoko2-kernel/page/README/
>>> Seems to me a more appropriate name would be gta04-kernel.
>> Well, "gta04-kernel" already exists and is the project for the kernel source.
>> But it should be renamed to Letux kernel (which is the official project name).
>> And we have to keep in mind that kernel is not only for the gta04 device but
>> also for others like openpandora and pyra (just by picking a different device
>> tree file). I don't know if you want to have 10 slightly different kernel packages
>> for 10 devices or a single one that runs on all (just having different u-boot
>> setup). The latter is what we use for some time for LXDE/XFCE and Replicant
>> and I do not see a need to go back.
>> On the other hand I agree that qtmoko2-kernel is also not exactly right.
>> A better name could be debian-kernel but that is also wrong.
>> The best description would be some abbreviation of:
>>>> There is now an easy way to build a kernel deb from whatever release
>>>> our kernel hackers deem stable. It is meant to be unpacked on top of a
>>>> fresh rootfs.
>>> I have improvements - at first to the README, to use only pure Debian,
>>> not need the (derivative of Debian) emdebian, but I may stumble upon
>>> other details I can polish.
> If you have good instructions for that, sure. I thought emdebian was
> still required to get the prebuilt cross-compiler.
>>> Can I please get write access to that repo, or should I rather post my
>>> proposed changes here for screening/discussion/whatever?
>> You already should have...
> I believe this depends on how ripe your improvements are. At some point
> they are bound to hit me on the head, and this is when you should just
> commit them imo.
>>>> Thats it for now, as mentioned above you can expect an apt repository
>>>> to be made available soon(TM).
>>> As I mentioned also at our meeting, I would be happy to either host that
>>> APT repo or help set it up, if that is of interest.
> I have no objections here, whichever is easiest to upload either source-
> or binary packages to I guess.
BTW: is it possible to set up the apt repo in a way that it regularly pulls
the sources from the git and rebuilds the packages and the meta information?
Then, we never have to "upload" anything. Just to tell the server which source
packages to fetch.
>> Since I am not sure how easy it is to set up write access for an apt repo
>> on the goldelico server (this is outside of the project management tool),
>> it would be a good idea to host it where the infrastructure exists.
>> Some things to think about:
>> * a different server needs to manage developer login twice
>> * ideally users would add some www.qtmoko.net path to /etc/apt/source.list
>> * so we need to add a forwarding link
More information about the Community