Re: [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>]

On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
>>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
>>> moved in.
>>>
>>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>>>
>>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>>>     u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>>>     u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>>>     u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>>>
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>    create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>>>
>>
>> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
>
> It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
> mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
> whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
> to really change often from one release to the next.
>
> If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
> that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
> them laying around, or STONITH?
>
Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
should go.

u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?

Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
compatibility of the older version?

Thanks
	Sau!

> Thanks,
> Paul.
>
>>
>> Sau!
>