[meta-freescale] linux-denx missing the needed hash

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Otavio,

In message <CAP9ODKpExT9=XNe0ZDh-S0amFh0rGqmctuuOq0G3MzJHm2vYqw at mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> 
> > It worked when Marek submitted it, right?  So something else was
> > changed?
> 
> If you read the looks it didn't. The problem is that Marek didn't
> build X11 and he didn't figure it out.

Yes, but then: we are not interestedn in supporting X11 on this
platform.  All users we are aware of prefer to use QtE when they need
a GUI.  So simply don't build X11.

> Subscribe the list and review the patches. It is a little too late to
> complain about a commit log already merged.

Thanks, but actually I am not interested in out-of-tree code.

> Even if I did a mistake in the branch name (which I am sure it worked
> at that time) I don't make money selling M28EVK or M53EVK, you do. So
> who should be keeping an eye if boards are working in the BSP?

I am not aware of any of our customers who ever tried the fsl-extre
stuff.  We have to provide support to our customers, and supporting
out-of-tree code is insane from a commercial point of view.  This is
why we only support them with mainline code.

But you sidetrack again: in community work, it is an established rule
that he who breakes working code is normally also responsible to fix
it.  Here it is a trivial build error, where no knowledge about the
actual hardware nor any actual testing on the board is needed, so I
really cannot see why you make such a fuss.

> I pushed to fix already so DENX boards are building. If you don't see
> value in having the boards in the BSP those can be dropped from the
> BSP. I would prefer if you, Marek or someone else could keep an eye on
> those and do regular tests so we catch problems.

You are suposed to test your commits so that they do not break the
build.

> I personally told Marek about the X11 issue more than a week ago. It
> ended I fixing it ... please stop and think if it is right.

I think it is.

- We are not much interested in X11 for this platform.  None of our
  customers and known users uses it.  Why should we invest efforts in
  testing or fixing unused features?

- It appears the breakage comes from out-of-tree code.  All the Yocto
  defined images build and run fine in a plain Yocto environment.
  This applies fully to Yocto 1.5.1 (see for example our ELDK v5.5
  which is based on this), and it applies mostly to Yocto 1.6_M2
  (we still have build issues there, but these are related to the
  Xenomai integration an not to using a mainline kernel [without
  referencing a branch name, btw.] or X11 or gstreamer or such].
  
  Especially with a commercial background in we need code that can be
  maintained over a long period of time - at least 5...10 years, maybe
  more.  This simply doesn't work with out-of-tree code, so we have no
  interest in fixing out-of-tree code, or problems caused by it.

> By the way, this is my last e-mail in this thread.

Agreed.  There have not been really new arguments, so we can stop here.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
If you're out of tree, you don't exist.
     - David Woodhouse in <1304620350.2398.29.camel at i7.infradead.org>