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

[Graeme Gregory <dp@xora.org.uk>]

This is really a technical disagreement between two developers so 
forwarded it back to the technical list.

I do not have my panda yet to test new bootloaders, I can rely on the 
one official supported by TI working well until tests on a newer version 
can be performed. Until new version is tested on real panda I am against 
upgrading it. If some distro does not have the sources in its fetchable 
list can the source archive not be copied to a more general source mirror?

Graeme

On 10/01/2011 22:10, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> Dear TSC,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> I agree that replacing the SRC_URI with one that is fetchable
> independent on distro specifics is the safest way to handle this.
> (but then again the solution I took was suggested by the upstream
> maintainer of the code).
>
> Unfortunately I feel that this decision does not touch the core of the problem.
> The issue at hand is that we have a maintainer that is already aware
> of the issue for almost three months (I've reported this problem
> already back in october).
> However this maintainer fails to take action, and has an attitude of
> "it works for me and my distro it is ok, and if it does not work for
> someone else, I don't care".
> I would have appreciated it if the TSC would take a position against
> this attitude,and the neglection to properly act as a maintainer.
>
> I feel this attitude is damaging OE.
> The blunt actions of this person have already driven away several
> people, and frankly speaking I'm also rapidly loosing interest to work
> on issues that are not strictly needed for my own projects.
> I feel we have a serious problem at hand that should have been dealt
> with a long time ago, difficult as it is.
>
> If we want to have a future beside yocto, it is important to be a
> friendly, respectful and cooperative community. Otherwise I fear OE
> will be history in a short while (which is something that I would
> pity, having been a member of the project for 5 years or so). As a
> crew I feel we are already close to being subcritical in number.
> Anyway, I for me, I am getting tired of being bitched at, where a
> polite message probably would have had much more effect.
> This is especially the case if it is by someone who has repeatedly
> shown disrespect for the work of others when it comes to making
> changes.
>
> A bit sad,
> Frans Meulenbroeks.
>
>
> 2011/1/10 Phil Blundell<philb@gnu.org>:
>> Frans,
>>
>> Thanks for your email.  We discussed this issue at the TSC meeting held
>> on 2011-01-05.
>>
>> The TSC feels that we should be guided by two key principles, namely:
>>
>> a) all recipes should have a SRC_URI which is fetchable without relying
>> on any DISTRO-specific configuration (e.g. custom source mirrors); and
>>
>> b) the version number (or SRCREV) of a given recipe should only be
>> bumped after testing and consultation with its users.  This applies
>> particularly to packages such as bootloaders and kernels which contain
>> many machine-specific parts and which would have particularly bad
>> consequences if inadvertently upgraded to nonworking versions.
>>
>> In this particular case the TSC believes that the right course of action
>> is to:
>>
>> 1. Find a way to repair the SRC_URI for the existing u-boot recipe so
>> that it is fetchable for everyone, but without changing the version of
>> the source code in use or the resulting binaries.  (For example, the
>> SRC_URI could be pointed directly at a snapshot tarball hosted in some
>> suitable place.)
>>
>> 2. Create an additional recipe for the current mainline version of
>> u-boot which can be fetched from SVN.  Individual machine maintainers
>> can test this version and, if it works for them, switch to using it at
>> their discretion.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Phil
>> (for the TSC)
>>
>> On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 19:37 +0100, 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tsc mailing list
>>> tsc@lists.linuxtogo.org
>>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>>
>>