Multi-laptop naming scheme for build files

[Samuel Greenfeld]

What James is referring to is that newer Open Firmware builds *already*
know to use 0,1,2 to distinguish signed XO-1, 1.5, & 1.75 installation
files respectively.

The unsigned files still need a scheme to be made distinguishable; but
unless we want to change OFW we should stick with what it knows.

For example:  If fs.zip is not found, an XO-1 will try fs0.zip, an XO-1.5
will try fs1.zip, and an XO-1.75 will try fs2.zip.  The same is true with
bootfw.zip & other files used by XOs when security is enabled.


On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org> wrote:

> Why not use the same prexix as in the firmware:
>
> XO-3 = Q5
> XO-1.75 = Q4
> XO-1.5 = Q3
> XO-1 = Q2
>
> Is not better, but value is having a single convention.
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd at laptop.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Right now, build files for XO-1.5 and XO-1.75 have the same filename
>> (#11226). There have been a few requests that we move to a naming
>> scheme that has a different filename in this case so that the files
>> can live together on a USB disk and generally not be so easily
>> confused.
>>
>> Some work needs to be done before that is possible, but we also need a
>> naming scheme. I think the key considerations for this are:
>>
>> 1. Future proofing. It should be resilient to the introduction of
>> future products that use the same architecture and disk image format.
>>
>> 2. Short names. OFW only understands 8.3 for FAT. Also, deployments
>> sometimes like to customise the 8 part too e.g. per703-2.img for Peru,
>> and I've seen others putting codes after the osXXX part, e.g.
>> os880j.img. Let's try and leave space for customisation here.
>>
>> 3. Uses only file name (the 8 part), not the extension (the 3 part).
>> This sticks with general computing world conventions and agrees with
>> some olpc-os-builder implementation details which allow the user to
>> customise the name but not extension, where olpc-os-builder can
>> guarantee that output files from different modules do not have
>> conflicting names.
>>
>>
>> Based on this and previous discussions I think we could go with something
>> like:
>>
>> 1. single-character ID for product type. 'a' for XO-1, 'b' for XO-1.5,
>> 'c' for XO-1.75, ...
>> 2. build number
>> 3. a "."
>> 4. extension
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> 'a900.img' - build 900 copy-nand image for XO-1
>> 'b900.zd4' - build 900 4GB image for XO-1.5
>> 'c900.zd4' - build 900 4GB image for XO-1.75
>>
>> Thoughts/other ideas?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Devel at lists.laptop.org
>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120314/d8bf968b/attachment.html>