Re: [meta-fsl-arm-extra][PATCH] nitrogen6x.conf: Allow kernel provider override

[Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>]

Hi Otavio,

On 10/30/2013 10:29 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Otavio Salvador
>> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2013-10-30 08:33, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2013-10-30 08:10, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This change lets the user override the choice of kernel in local.conf
>>>>>>>> Without it, there is no way to build any kernel, e.g. linux-imx, other
>>>>>>>> than the linux-boundary version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
>>>>>>>
>>
 >> <snip>
 >>
>> I do agree with both sides. But I think you didn´t presented the
>> complete set of possibilities. I mean, it´s not a "support" X
>> "flexibility" fight.
>>
>> If nitrogen-any deserves to be flexible, so all other deserves it the same way.
>>
>> If it´s "wrong" for one board. It´s "wrong" for any. So, please submit
>> the patch to fix all/every board.
>
> Agreed here.
>
Works for me.

Gary, do you want to take the patch? Otavio asked me 'cause he
was asking about our board...

>> As I really don´t have an strong position for this. I would say, let´s
>> change and see what´s happens.
>>
>> For support nightmare, we always need to say what is
>> u-boot/kernel/yocto problem in this ML, so the nightmare is already
>> here.
>
> :-(
>

Aww, it's not a nightmare. It's a jobs program ;)

>> But, in my opinion, it´s NOT a bug fix, and should NOT be merged in dora.
>
> Yes I agree it is not a bugfix but I think that it'd be better to be
> consistent with dora and master at this point. Most people will keep
> using dora for a while and it'd be better to have this deplyed now
> than see how it goes in 1.6 only.
>
> Comments?
>

Gary, did you ever think a single question mark would prompt so much
discussion?

I wish we had a clean "MAKEALL" to make sure nothing breaks, but that
seems unlikely.

Regards,


Eric