On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:18 PM, James Westby <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:48:00 -0000, Mattias Backman <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Should perhaps the use of --hwpack-force-yes require that --hwpack-sig
>> and --binary-sig options are passed?
>
> Nope, I think we want the force option to remain.
>
> We do want to make --hwpack-force-yes unneeded if the options are passed
> though. Either by doing what it already does, or by avoiding the
> question from apt entirely.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:18 PM, James Westby <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:48:00 -0000, Mattias Backman <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Should perhaps the use of --hwpack-force-yes require that --hwpack-sig
>> and --binary-sig options are passed?
>
> Nope, I think we want the force option to remain.
>
> We do want to make --hwpack-force-yes unneeded if the options are passed
> though. Either by doing what it already does, or by avoiding the
> question from apt entirely.
The change in https:/ /code.launchpad .net/~mabac/ linaro- image-tools/ bug-638384- hwpackforceyes- unneeded/ +merge/ 59371
makes hwpacks install with --force-yes if the options are passed and
the hwpack integrity is confirmed. So the --hwpack-sig option is
optional but now benefits the user when passed.
Supplying a signature file for the rootfs is still optional and will
abort the script if verification fails.