From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mo1.mail-out.ovh.net (6.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net [46.105.43.205]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F94FE006CC for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:18:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail189.ha.ovh.net (b6.ovh.net [213.186.33.56]) by mo1.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 06EC6FFA3FE for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:30:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 15 Dec 2012 20:18:05 +0200 Received: from tal33-3-82-233-81-124.fbx.proxad.net (HELO eb-e6520) (eric%eukrea.com@82.233.81.124) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 15 Dec 2012 20:18:02 +0200 Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:18:02 +0100 From: Eric =?ISO-8859-1?B?QuluYXJk?= To: Otavio Salvador X-Ovh-Mailout: 178.32.228.1 (mo1.mail-out.ovh.net) Message-ID: <20121215191802.2f8aa656@eb-e6520> In-Reply-To: References: <1355486234-7035-1-git-send-email-andrei.gherzan@windriver.com> <20121214145331.54c07822@eb-e6520> <20121214150150.1aa8eaf5@eb-e6520> <20121214151314.001f1ec8@eb-e6520> <20121214152619.79098454@eb-e6520> <20121214163024.7427cf1d@eb-e6520> <50CB58BF.5030309@freescale.com> <20121214185822.4bea3ad0@eb-e6520> <20121214192214.41ae625b@eb-e6520> Organization: =?ISO-8859-1?B?RXVrculh?= Electromatique X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 13752304412324965756 X-Ovh-Remote: 82.233.81.124 (tal33-3-82-233-81-124.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-OVH-SPAMSTATE: OK X-OVH-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-OVH-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeehjedrudefucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfhrhhomhepgfhrihgtuceurohnrghrugcuoegvrhhitgesvghukhhrvggrrdgtohhmqeenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkjghfohfogggtgfesthhqredtredtud X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeehjedrudefucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfhrhhomhepgfhrihgtuceurohnrghrugcuoegvrhhitgesvghukhhrvggrrdgtohhmqeenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkjghfohfogggtgfesthhqredtredtud Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:18:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Le Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:04:54 -0200, Otavio Salvador a =E9crit : > Did you choose a side? :-) >=20 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. 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." : 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. Eric