Hi,
Currently we are reassessing whether or not the Headless image meets the requirements for a console-only developer focused image usable for kernel, boot loader, power management and other types of non-gui development. Just for information the current stats as of 2011-01-21 are:
* Download Size: 64M * Download size with OMAP3 hwpack: 100M * Package count: 260
The list of package currently on the image can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Foundations/Specs/DeveloperImage#Package List
The current thoughts are to increase the package count and download size by adding a number of developer focused packages. The initial list of additional packages can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Foundations/Specs/DeveloperImage#Design
Is there anything missing? A more stripped down 'nano' image will be produced for board bring-up and verification, see my other email entitled "Call for opinion: Linaro 'Nano' Image" for more information.
Is anyone *really* against this idea and is satisfied with the Headless image in its current state? Opinions? Thoughts? Criticisms?
Regards, Jamie. -- Linaro Release Manager
fwiw, I'm using the headless image on my overo board and not everything on the support board is enabled... e.g. I can't plug in a USB keyboard or mouse (don't think it's in the kernel).
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Jamie Bennett jamie.bennett@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
Currently we are reassessing whether or not the Headless image meets the requirements for a console-only developer focused image usable for kernel, boot loader, power management and other types of non-gui development. Just for information the current stats as of 2011-01-21 are:
* Download Size: 64M * Download size with OMAP3 hwpack: 100M * Package count: 260
The list of package currently on the image can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Foundations/Specs/DeveloperImage#Package List
The current thoughts are to increase the package count and download size by adding a number of developer focused packages. The initial list of additional packages can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Foundations/Specs/DeveloperImage#Design
Is there anything missing? A more stripped down 'nano' image will be produced for board bring-up and verification, see my other email entitled "Call for opinion: Linaro 'Nano' Image" for more information.
Is anyone *really* against this idea and is satisfied with the Headless image in its current state? Opinions? Thoughts? Criticisms?
Regards, Jamie. -- Linaro Release Manager
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Joey,
I entered a bug for this against the omap3 kernel. USB mouse and keyboard work on beagle which uses the same kernel. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-linaro-omap/+bug/706033
John
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Joey Stanford joey.stanford@linaro.org wrote:
fwiw, I'm using the headless image on my overo board and not everything on the support board is enabled... e.g. I can't plug in a USB keyboard or mouse (don't think it's in the kernel).
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Jamie Bennett jamie.bennett@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
Currently we are reassessing whether or not the Headless image meets the requirements for a console-only developer focused image usable for kernel, boot loader, power management and other types of non-gui development. Just for information the current stats as of 2011-01-21 are:
* Download Size: 64M * Download size with OMAP3 hwpack: 100M * Package count: 260
The list of package currently on the image can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Foundations/Specs/DeveloperImage#Package List
The current thoughts are to increase the package count and download size by adding a number of developer focused packages. The initial list of additional packages can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Foundations/Specs/DeveloperImage#Design
Is there anything missing? A more stripped down 'nano' image will be produced for board bring-up and verification, see my other email entitled "Call for opinion: Linaro 'Nano' Image" for more information.
Is anyone *really* against this idea and is satisfied with the Headless image in its current state? Opinions? Thoughts? Criticisms?
Regards, Jamie. -- Linaro Release Manager
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:22:45 +0000, Jamie Bennett jamie.bennett@linaro.org wrote:
The current thoughts are to increase the package count and download size by adding a number of developer focused packages.
Once we have the smaller image and this developer image (both of which I see the need for), what is the use case for the current headless image?
Cheers, mwh
On 24 January 2011 20:49, Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hudson@canonical.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:22:45 +0000, Jamie Bennett jamie.bennett@linaro.org wrote:
The current thoughts are to increase the package count and download size by adding a number of developer focused packages.
Once we have the smaller image and this developer image (both of which I see the need for), what is the use case for the current headless image?
Basically Headless would go away. These two images are being proposed to replace the Headless image which is neither small nor feature-ful. Hopefully the new images will address the specific needs of two different target audiences better.
Cheers, mwh
Regards, Jamie.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:47:20 +0000, Jamie Bennett jamie.bennett@linaro.org wrote:
On 24 January 2011 20:49, Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hudson@canonical.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:22:45 +0000, Jamie Bennett jamie.bennett@linaro.org wrote:
The current thoughts are to increase the package count and download size by adding a number of developer focused packages.
Once we have the smaller image and this developer image (both of which I see the need for), what is the use case for the current headless image?
Basically Headless would go away. These two images are being proposed to replace the Headless image which is neither small nor feature-ful. Hopefully the new images will address the specific needs of two different target audiences better.
That makes sense. +1 then.
Cheers, mwh
-
Jamie Bennett -
Joey Stanford -
John Rigby -
Michael Hudson-Doyle