7:27 a.m.
Hi,
Here's my initial attempt at an equivalent livecd-iso-to-xo.sh for the
XO-1.5. This involves a filesystem change to ext2 as we no longer have
raw flash access (right?).
Completely untested.
Open questions:
1. What should the root= kernel parameter be?
2. How would we distribute this to testers and developers?
The resultant file is 4gb, albeit sparse. Maybe rsync can handle
sparse files efficiently.
3. How do we use OFW to flash this, including a partition table etc?
Daniel
7:54 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:27:20PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
3. How do we use OFW to flash this, including a partition table
etc?
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OFW_NAND_FLASH_Updater#Make_a_Partition_Map_and...
Looks like olpc-image-builder from
http://dev.laptop.org/~dsaxena/ubi_test/olpc-image-builder as
discussed
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/UBIFS_initial_experiments#Image_Building by
dsaxena can be used, along with the OFW update-nand word as mentioned
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/UBIFS_initial_experiments#Image_Download_and_In...
Should be instructional to do in practice (and then document!).
Perhaps it'd be a good time to partition /home and/or implement some
of the partitioning layouts that have been batted about. Willing to
help test out that if you need.
Daniel
Martin
8:13 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd(a)laptop.org> wrote:
2. How would we distribute this to testers and developers?
The resultant file is 4gb, albeit sparse. Maybe rsync can handle
sparse files efficiently.
those images gzip pretty well. And you can do
gzip -dc foobar.img.gz | dd of=/dev/something
At least that's working well for ext2/3 images for SD cards in the
context of XS.
cheers,
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
12:16 p.m.
Hi,
1. What should the root= kernel parameter be?
LABEL=OLPCRoot, unless there's a good reason not to use LABEL=.
We'll want to boot it from NAND (/dev/hda1), USB or SD.
2. How would we distribute this to testers and developers?
Just as with rawhide-xo, I think. I'll set up a cron job and URL
for this build.
The resultant file is 4gb, albeit sparse. Maybe rsync can handle
sparse files efficiently.
Or we could distribute it as a .bootable.gz, which is what I've been
doing for rawhide-xo.
3. How do we use OFW to flash this, including a partition table
etc?
We can just run fdisk on the loop device first, I think? Then, you
could flash it to NAND (the XO-1.5 NAND shows up as an IDE device)
with "zcat new.bootable.gz >/dev/hda", or to USB with >/dev/sdX.
Presumably OFW could be made to do something similar; I'm not sure
what "copy-nand" should look like for the 1.5, now that it's IDE.
Any problems with this?
Thanks,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
2:51 p.m.
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 13:16 -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
> 1. What should the root= kernel parameter be?
LABEL=OLPCRoot, unless there's a good reason not to use LABEL=.
We'll want to boot it from NAND (/dev/hda1), USB or SD.
Checked in on xo-1.5 branch of projects/fedora-xo
Raises some questions for later...in what form are we going to use an
initrd (our previous one, or a different one) and will it support LABEL=
> The resultant file is 4gb, albeit sparse. Maybe rsync can
handle
> sparse files efficiently.
Or we could distribute it as a .bootable.gz, which is what I've been
doing for rawhide-xo.
OK, the .img file now gets compressed with gzip, and indeed it
compresses very well.
Checked in on xo-1.5 branch of projects/fedora-xo
We can just run fdisk on the loop device first, I think? Then, you
could flash it to NAND (the XO-1.5 NAND shows up as an IDE device)
with "zcat new.bootable.gz >/dev/hda", or to USB with >/dev/sdX.
Presumably OFW could be made to do something similar; I'm not sure
what "copy-nand" should look like for the 1.5, now that it's IDE.
Any problems with this?
As discussed on IRC, this is a bit tricky and since we don't know what
the OFW-level interface is going to look like, I've left this for now.
Daniel
3:03 p.m.
Hi Dan,
Raises some questions for later...in what form are we going to
use an initrd (our previous one, or a different one) and will it
support LABEL=
We're going to be obliged to ship our security work with XO-1.5.
Whether we use the old Debian initrd (which is seeming crufty and
hard to maintain) or move up to a more standard F11 initrd as a base
is still an open question -- I'd side with upgrading to F11, if we
can work out how to get it done. (Part of it may involve converting
bootanim to be a plymouth plugin; another open question.)
Thanks,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
3:12 p.m.
chris wrote:
Hi Dan,
> Raises some questions for later...in what form are we going to
> use an initrd (our previous one, or a different one) and will it
> support LABEL=
We're going to be obliged to ship our security work with XO-1.5.
Whether we use the old Debian initrd (which is seeming crufty and
hard to maintain) or move up to a more standard F11 initrd as a base
is still an open question -- I'd side with upgrading to F11, if we
can work out how to get it done. (Part of it may involve converting
bootanim to be a plymouth plugin; another open question.)
which begs another question: if we're already customizing fedora,
how much are we going to allow ourselves to customize it? e.g.,
could we simply remove plymouth, and install bootanim, if that
makes sense?
i'd think we'd want the path-of-least-resistance solution in most cases.
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, pgf(a)laptop.org
3:23 p.m.
Hi,
which begs another question: if we're already customizing
fedora,
how much are we going to allow ourselves to customize it? e.g.,
could we simply remove plymouth, and install bootanim, if that
makes sense?
We certainly could. I think plymouth may be more robust than either
bootanim implementation, and the plymouth authors have prototyped an
olpc theme for us, so it seems worth giving that a serious look rather
than planning to maintain bootanim on our own. (Plymouth also allows
prettier graphics, in case we decide we'd like a smooth animation.)
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
3:28 p.m.
chris wrote:
Hi,
> which begs another question: if we're already customizing fedora,
> how much are we going to allow ourselves to customize it? e.g.,
> could we simply remove plymouth, and install bootanim, if that
> makes sense?
We certainly could. I think plymouth may be more robust than either
bootanim implementation, and the plymouth authors have prototyped an
olpc theme for us, so it seems worth giving that a serious look rather
than planning to maintain bootanim on our own. (Plymouth also allows
prettier graphics, in case we decide we'd like a smooth animation.)
i certainly never meant we shouldn't consider plymouth. i'm just
dipping my toes into the "how much are we allowed to change?"
discussion. (i seem to keep getting caught in plymouth threads.
my question this time really was intended to have larger scope.)
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, pgf(a)laptop.org
3:31 p.m.
FWIW, on the Sugar Labs side we are interested in Plymouth especially
its potential for use with other distros, we've been doing mockups
based on the OLPC prototype:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Marketing_Team/Boot_Logo
Sean
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Paul Fox <pgf(a)laptop.org> wrote:
chris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > which begs another question: if we're already customizing fedora,
> > how much are we going to allow ourselves to customize it? e.g.,
> > could we simply remove plymouth, and install bootanim, if that
> > makes sense?
>
> We certainly could. I think plymouth may be more robust than either
> bootanim implementation, and the plymouth authors have prototyped an
> olpc theme for us, so it seems worth giving that a serious look rather
> than planning to maintain bootanim on our own. (Plymouth also allows
> prettier graphics, in case we decide we'd like a smooth animation.)
i certainly never meant we shouldn't consider plymouth. i'm just
dipping my toes into the "how much are we allowed to change?"
discussion. (i seem to keep getting caught in plymouth threads.
my question this time really was intended to have larger scope.)
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, pgf(a)laptop.org
_______________________________________________
Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
3:48 p.m.
Hi,
i certainly never meant we shouldn't consider plymouth. i'm
just
dipping my toes into the "how much are we allowed to change?"
discussion. (i seem to keep getting caught in plymouth threads.
my question this time really was intended to have larger scope.)
Ah, okay. I don't have anything prescriptive to say -- as you hinted
at, the broad theme is that we're going to be modifying the initrd
anyway, would like to stay close to upstream projects where possible,
but are not compelled to avoid making changes if it's a path we feel
we need to take.
Thanks,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>
5481
days inactive
5481
days old
10 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Chris Ball -
Daniel Drake -
Martin Dengler -
Martin Langhoff -
Paul Fox -
Sean DALY