[Community] [Gta04-owner] Report on QtMoko

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Wed Jun 15 13:48:19 CEST 2016

Quoting Josua Mayer (2016-06-15 13:07:56)
> 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>:
>>> 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 below.
>>>> 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:
>> kernel-for-letux-project-for-many-devices-but-not-all-packaged-for-debian

Ok, so scope is the whole _family_ of Letux devices, not (the GTA04 
board of) Letux 2604 as I thought.

Then the in my opinion most appropriate name is letux-kernel.

>>>> 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.
>>> Great!
>>> 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.

Emdebian is needed only with Jessie, not Stretch onwards.

Assuming your end goal is inclusion in _Debian_ I would change the 
documentation to talk about pure Debian by default now that is possible, 
and mention workaround for Jessie and older only as a comments, to 
clearly discourage use of that moving forward, and ease later cleanup.

>>> 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.

Not sure what you mean by that.  To be on the safe side I will *not* 
touch that git until clarified that you consider it a help that I do so. 
(but since mailinglist discussion is more tedious than git edits, I will 
likely contribute _less_).

>>>> 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.
>> 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

APT does not support http 301/302 redirection, so if branding is 
important, then either services need to be established at your own hosts 
or "forwarding" means entries in domain name system.

Most elegant setup involves root access (involves juggling low-port 
services, cron jobs, and installation of tools).  Can I be granted root 
on your server to set it up, or do I need to proxy all changes through 
someone else (read: more bothersome)?

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.goldelico.com/pipermail/community/attachments/20160615/ebcb1032/attachment.asc>

More information about the Community mailing list