[Buildroot] [RFC] Support for "distributions" in buildroot

[Ulf Samuelsson <ulf@atmel.com>]

> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 09:08:50AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> 
>> I see buildroot as a promising tool to allow newbies to get running
>> with embedded linux, and the goal of most of my efforts are to
>> reduce the obstacles for the user.
> 
> I also think this is a nice goal.
> 
>> When the newbie wants to start developing a product
>> then ideally it is good to use the latest version of packages,
>> but if that fails, then having a distribution where at least the
>> packages have been known to cooperate is a good thing.
> 
> which is where he'd better use the snapshot anyway.

At one stage, it is likely that the user wants to swap from the snapshot
to the current svn.

> 
> the downside is that it will be an easier path for the user to fork and
> work on his own snapshot.
> 
According to Stephen, forking is a preferred method...
Personally, I want to avoid forking!

>> Instead of  just applying "*.patch", I much prefer that the makefile fragment
>> use a file with a list of patches which should be applied to the tarball.
>> 
>> Each supported package version then only needs its list of files ("series"?).
>> If a new version with new patches is added, then that needs 
>> a separate "series" file.
> 
> I'd rather have a separate patch directory for each version instead of
> files. then the user can just drop his own patch in that directory
> without having to edit a file that is in svn.
> 

It is not mutually exclusive.  I do like having a separate directory as well.
Sometime patches has to be applied in a certain order,
and then you need either to name it in directory order (which I don't like)
or you have a list of patches in the correct order.

>> Adding a new patch for a new version will then not cause a problem, 
>> since the "series" file for the old version is not updated.
>> Patches can be shared between different versions, something which is not
>> possible if we use the current method "<package>-$(version)-<name>.patch".
> 
> svn handles softlinks..
> 
>> It would also be good if there were a structured way to have some patches
>> downloaded from internet, instead of the ad-hoc methods used today.
> 
> as you already have said, downloading from the internet can be annoying
> because the patches or source tarballs can disappear.
> 
>> -  What happens if one architecture needs version 'A', 
>>    and another architecture needs version 'B'?
> 
> it is a good question indeed.
> 
> 

Which needs to be answered by those not ack'ing the distribution patch!

Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson