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.<br><br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gonzalo@laptop.org">gonzalo@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why not use the same prexix as in the firmware:<div><br></div><div>XO-3
=
Q5 </div><div>XO-1.75
=
Q4 </div><div>XO-1.5
=
Q3 </div><div>XO-1
=
Q2</div><div><br></div><div>Is not better, but value is having a single convention.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Gonzalo</font></span><div>
<div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Daniel Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dsd@laptop.org" target="_blank">dsd@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Right now, build files for XO-1.5 and XO-1.75 have the same filename<br>
(#11226). There have been a few requests that we move to a naming<br>
scheme that has a different filename in this case so that the files<br>
can live together on a USB disk and generally not be so easily<br>
confused.<br>
<br>
Some work needs to be done before that is possible, but we also need a<br>
naming scheme. I think the key considerations for this are:<br>
<br>
1. Future proofing. It should be resilient to the introduction of<br>
future products that use the same architecture and disk image format.<br>
<br>
2. Short names. OFW only understands 8.3 for FAT. Also, deployments<br>
sometimes like to customise the 8 part too e.g. per703-2.img for Peru,<br>
and I've seen others putting codes after the osXXX part, e.g.<br>
os880j.img. Let's try and leave space for customisation here.<br>
<br>
3. Uses only file name (the 8 part), not the extension (the 3 part).<br>
This sticks with general computing world conventions and agrees with<br>
some olpc-os-builder implementation details which allow the user to<br>
customise the name but not extension, where olpc-os-builder can<br>
guarantee that output files from different modules do not have<br>
conflicting names.<br>
<br>
<br>
Based on this and previous discussions I think we could go with something like:<br>
<br>
1. single-character ID for product type. 'a' for XO-1, 'b' for XO-1.5,<br>
'c' for XO-1.75, ...<br>
2. build number<br>
3. a "."<br>
4. extension<br>
<br>
e.g.<br>
<br>
'a900.img' - build 900 copy-nand image for XO-1<br>
'b900.zd4' - build 900 4GB image for XO-1.5<br>
'c900.zd4' - build 900 4GB image for XO-1.75<br>
<br>
Thoughts/other ideas?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Daniel<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Devel@lists.laptop.org" target="_blank">Devel@lists.laptop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Devel@lists.laptop.org">Devel@lists.laptop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>