Re: [PATCH 2/2] omap4430-panda: fix u-boot

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

On 01/01/2011 01:37 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> [Added TSC to the email, as I would like to request a decision on how
> to handle this]
>
>> Frans, given these two choices:
>>
>> 1) Recipe that builds and has tested output (but depends on distro source
>> mirrors).
>>
>> 2) Recipe that builds (even without source mirrors), BUT the output is not
>> tested.
>>
>> We should use choice #1, since the OUTPUT is tested. If someone who can test
>> the output wants to bump the SRCREV, that is fine. Bumping SRCREVs just to
>> get recipes to build and not testing the output only leads to frustrated
>> users who think the output works.
>>
>> I'd point out that no one on the panda list (or this list) has mentioned
>> they noticed the recipe doesn't build, so I am not sure you are addressing
>> an actual problem.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>
> Philip, thanks for your reply.
>
> I'd like to point out that the fact that the recipe does not build has
> been reported to this very list late oct 2010.
> At that point Steve Sakoman (the owner of the git from which the
> recipe pulls) suggested to use u-boot 2010.09.
> I did not get to fixing the recipe until yesterday. As u-boot 2010.12
> is already out I figured that this would be a better choice.
> I am also on the u-boot list and I know the changes from Steve are
> pulled into u-boot master.
> (and wrt to availability: I am quite confident that in a few years
> time this version can still be retrieved).
>
> The problem that this recipe does not build is already known for more
> than 2 months but the machine maintainer apparently is not interested
> in fixing his recipe.
> As such I feel the maintainer is doing a bad job.
>
> There are several ways to fix the problem.
> To coin a few:
> - move to a SRCREV that seems to me more stable (e.g. because it is a
> merge with upstream). I agree that there is still a chance of getting
> a breakage in the future
> - putting the tarball for the version that we have now at e.g.
> downloads.openembedded.org or so and adapt the recipe (we have done
> this for other recipes as well)
> - move to upstream. The panda changes from Steve have been merged by
> Wolfgang. I am not aware of any reason not to do so.
>
> While each alternative has its pro's and con's none of them is
> complicated, and any of them could have been done easily.
> As the problem is already reported last october, I feel the maintainer
> is not doing a good job, and actually makes things worse by abusing
> his powers to block others who want to fix it.
> Apparently spending a few minutes to resolve the issue is too much
> work, but there is of course always time to bitch and moan toward
> others who do want to keep OE a system that supports multiple machines
> and multiple distros.
>
> I'd like to ask the TSC to come up with a decision on how we should
> fix this recipe. I have already indicated a few solutions above. Yet
> another alternative (which is not too desirable) is to create another
> machine that chooses a proper recipe for u-boot.

For the TSC's consideration, how about we start moving BSP's (board 
support packages) into layers and letting the users of boards be 
responsible for their maintenance?

Philip


>
> Frans
>
> PS: the fact that there are no other reports of this is probably
> because not many people rebuild u-boot. Most of my boards still use
> the u-boot that was on the board when I got it. I guess this also
> holds for other people.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>