Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com>]

On 12/14/2012 10:41 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Daiane Angolini
> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 10:00 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Can we have these 3 patches series merged in danny too?
>>
>> Thanks for the patches. I haven't figured it before and it really makes
>> sense.
>>
>> Could you, please, send V2 using another name for recipe?
>
> Daiane,
>
> Maybe the name choosen by Andrei could be kept. Let me explain ...
>
> The point here is to avoid collision in namespace so the risk of
> someone providing u-boot-mainline in a BSP or internal layer is higher
> than u-boot-fsl and while this code is based on mainline code it has
> some patches specific for us (like the environment changes for OE).
>
> What do you think?

I don't agree u-boot-fsl is a good/clear name. But it's only a matter of 
naming. Anything else would be good. Let me explain:

currently we have:

1) u-boot from mainline plus some imx patches
2) u-boot from freescale (2009.08 - it's called u-boot-imx)

If there is any u-boot to be called FSL it would be the one provided by FSL.

So, I would propose

1) u-boot from mainline plus some imx patches = u-boot-imx
2) u-boot from freescale (2009.08) = u-boot-fsl


Or, in case you want to keep u-boot-imx as is, you can choose any other 
word to determinate 1), somethink like:

1) u-boot from mainline plus some imx patches = u-boot-github
2) u-boot from freescale (2009.08) = u-boot-imx


Daiane