From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RsIf0-0003nL-OS for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:42:30 +0100 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2012 10:34:35 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="61759309" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.14.89]) ([10.255.14.89]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2012 10:34:35 -0800 Message-ID: <4F28343A.8070501@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0800 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Gortmaker , 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer' References: <1327681281-11454-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <4F281CAC.5010304@linux.intel.com> <4F282815.1070407@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <4F282815.1070407@windriver.com> Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release. X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:42:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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! > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [143.182.124.37]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C0CE00303 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2012 10:34:35 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="61759309" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.14.89]) ([10.255.14.89]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2012 10:34:35 -0800 Message-ID: <4F28343A.8070501@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0800 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Gortmaker , 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer' References: <1327681281-11454-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <4F281CAC.5010304@linux.intel.com> <4F282815.1070407@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <4F282815.1070407@windriver.com> Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release. X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:34:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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! >