Re: RFC: Renaming uboot-utils

[Andy Wilcox <andy@protium.com>]

Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>
>> OP is the only distro that currently needs u-boot-utils (for fw_setenv,
>> a target
>> utility).  I was trying to bend that out of the way: this package won't do
>> anything if you aren't building OP.  But perhaps that was wrong - I should
>> always built that utility, and you can use this package or not.  Is the
>> latter
>> way the right OE way?
>>     
>
>   Yes, I'd say the right way for mainline OE is to use machine/distro
> overrides very sparingly, in selected places only. OE provides
> flexible overrides mechanism to address special needs a vendor may have
> to build its product per its requirements, but such overrides better live
> in vendor trees/overlays. For mainline OE, I'd say it's better to err
> on generality, than create complex and non-maintainable overrides maze
> (an example is OPIE which risked removal from OE due to this, and by
> now has been almost completely cleared off from any
> machine-specific hacks).
>
>   
Sounds reasonable.  I'll adjust that.
>
>> Perhaps the MACHINE|DISTRO_FEATURES uboot should just
>> go away?  It was only needed to make the native mkimage program,
>> which really should be a kernel DEPENDS anyway.  Sound
>> reasonable?
>>     
Let me answer my own question here.  It appears that
MACHINE|DISTRO_FEATURES was serving two purposes - one -
to actually make a u-boot.bin file for the target, and two - to
generate mkimage on the build host.   Given the former, it
should definitely not go away!

A few kernels will need to add the u-boot-utils-native dependency,
notably the linkstation.  I'll make these adjustments in the commit.

Regards,
Andy