[meta-freescale] Fwd: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl
daiane.list at gmail.com
Sun Dec 16 06:30:31 PST 2012
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
>> Le Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:04:54 -0200,
>> Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>>> Did you choose a side? :-)
>> as I said to Andrei off list : if the comment was "rename u-boot to
>> u-boot-fslc as we find it better to show that this recipe builds
>> u-boot + freescale's patches", then that's a cosmetic choice and not a
>> technical issue.
> I should have choosen a better name when adding u-boot recipe; the
> u-boot name gives the wrong impression it takes the source from DENX
> (mainline) but it is not the case.
>> But the commit log is "It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot
>> even if it uses a repo specific to freescale boards. This would lead to
>> issues while using other bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm
>> where different u-boot versions but same uboot name are used."
> I agree it can be reworded.
>> : it is a
>> false isssue and can be solved with an other way (more nice and clean
>> IMHO) than renaming the recipe, especially with the example provided in
>> the comment which clearly shows a problem in bsp X.
>> Getting this issue means bsp X's u-boot_git recipe which is not
>> designed to properly work with other BSP (and so you can expect other
>> issues with other recipes this BSP may include so in my daily usage,
>> unless I have time to analyze all the files in this BSP X, I would
>> certainly exclude it from my common builds and keep it in its own build
>> area to not take the risk to get unwanted changes from the faulty BSP).
>> I hope this is more clear now.
> Yes; I agree BSP X is broken but I'd also like to be clear about the
> u-boot and linux recipes not being pure mainline (yet).
> So Andrei can reword the commit log (not suggesting BSP X or Y are
> right or wrong) but renaming for clearness. Can we go this route?
I´m happy you decided what was the main problem of this situation.
Now I need to know how to name "linux-mainline". I´ve been cooking 3.7
recipe and I will send a patch in a while. I want to know how to name
I still think it´s weird not having a "u-boot" and a "linux" recipe. I
was looking around other meta layers and everyone have it.
In the other hand, meta-fsl-arm does support 2 u-boots and 2 kernels
(mainline and FSL), so, maybe having a description name for both would
More information about the meta-freescale