Re: Kernel Packages/Modules and Versioning

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>]

On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 12:00 +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> Currently kernel modules create packages with names of the form
> 
> kernel-module-umaga_${PV}-${PR}.ipk
> 
> This I feel is not a good idea for mobile system that can have package
> upgrades in the field. It is my feeling that kernel modules/images
> should never upgrade without attendance from the user.
> 
> On reason for this is to make sure user is plugged into sufficient
> power and has facilities to fix device before doing such a drastic
> upgrade.
> 
> I would like to suggest all kernel packages are actually packaged as
> 
> kernel-module-umaga-${PV}_${RELEASE_NO}-${PV}.ipk
> 
> and that a kernel-updater is developed to guide user through kernel
> upgrades with less danger of broken devices at the end.
> 
> Obviously some policy would be needed so that ${RELEASE_NO}-${PV} is
> guaranteed to load on all kernel-image-${PV} kernels.
> 
> Anyway I thought I would expose this to the wider audience for more
> comments than just openmoko lists. I know this is suitable for all
> devices so Id like opinions.

Putting on the devils advocate hat, why not enhance ipkg or whatever so
kernel-modules-* is blacklisted and warns the user an update is
available but to install it see/do "foo".

Trying to solve this package management/user issue that deeply in the
build system doesn't seem an entirely good idea.

On a technical level, do we like task-base rrecommending
"kernel-module-umaga-${PV}"? How/when do you upgrade task-base? or do we
then need "task-base-${PV}"?

Cheers,

Richard