[V3dot10] needed tool

Keith Hodges keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Jan 22 01:11:20 UTC 2007

> it loads in a set of fixes, but how would it know which
> packages to save?  Since it is repeatable, you can always go back and
You dont, but if you save ALL of the packages, then you have covered ALL 
the packages. Any packages which have not been effected may simply 
report back saying "no changes".

The main challenge according to Stephane is ensuring that these packages 
can be loaded in again.
> change the script if you discover that you made a mistake, but in fact
> 3.9 has a script and you can change it, so there isn't much
> difference.
> One of the differences is that the 3.9 script points to MC packages
> instead of change sets.  Mantis mostly contains change sets.  So, the
> change sets in Mantis had to be converted to MC.  It seems to me that
> if you mostly use MC then you'll always have to convert change sets to
> MC and will have the same problem.
With my scheme, I am not going as fundamentally down the line of being 
able to build an entire image from monticello packages as I believe they 
were hoping to do in 3.9. This idea comes into its own once more when we 
are at a point of starting from a minimal KernelImage.

At this stage we are not quite there yet, so I am going back to the 
image, being modified by changesets approach once more.

However Monticello comes in is as a publishing and distribution tool, so 
that once you have updated a chunk of functionality, you can save it as 
a monticello package and hence make it available to others, and the 
KernelImage too when its turn comes.
As more and more modules become optional, as the core image is stripped 
down, the monticello packaging role becomes more used 3.9 paved the way 
by giving us some packages to work with.



All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

More information about the V3dot10 mailing list