[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801

[ulf at uclibc.org]

Author: ulf
Date: 2007-08-19 14:09:28 -0700 (Sun, 19 Aug 2007)
New Revision: 19567

Log:
UPdate Soekris Linux config to 2.6.22.1

Modified:
   trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801/linux26.config


Changeset:

Sorry, the patch is too large to include (1141 lines).
Please use ViewCVS to see it!

http://uclibc.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&root=svn&rev=19567

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801

[Brad House]

> Log:
> UPdate Soekris Linux config to 2.6.22.1
> 
> Modified:
>    trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801/linux26.config
> 

Thanks for committing that update... Any reason the other part of
my patch didn't make it (mainly the removal of the busybox and uclibc
configs)?

-Brad

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801

[Ulf Samuelsson]

s?n 2007-08-19 klockan 21:49 -0400 skrev Brad House:
> > Log:
> > UPdate Soekris Linux config to 2.6.22.1
> > 
> > Modified:
> >    trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801/linux26.config
> > 
> 
> Thanks for committing that update... Any reason the other part of
> my patch didn't make it (mainly the removal of the busybox and uclibc
> configs)?
> 

Yes, I can't judge the consequences of that action.
That does not mean that the proposed patch is rejected.
Just that I will not do it.

Are you related to the manufacturer of the H/W?

I will leave that decision to Someone Else(tm)

What I can do, is to add another x86 target, without those files...



> -Brad
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at uclibc.org
> http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801

[Brad House]

>>> Log:
>>> UPdate Soekris Linux config to 2.6.22.1
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>    trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801/linux26.config
>>>
>> Thanks for committing that update... Any reason the other part of
>> my patch didn't make it (mainly the removal of the busybox and uclibc
>> configs)?
>>
> 
> Yes, I can't judge the consequences of that action.
> That does not mean that the proposed patch is rejected.
> Just that I will not do it.
> 
> Are you related to the manufacturer of the H/W?
> 
> I will leave that decision to Someone Else(tm)
> 
> What I can do, is to add another x86 target, without those files...

No, I have no affiliation with soekris. My company is just looking at
them as a possible hardware vendor for our embedded application, and
I've been just submitting patches which fixed problems I've
encountered.  I guess my main motivation for having all the patches
committed is purely selfish as it's easier for them to be upstream
than maintaining an overlay patchset.  That said, I think others
could benefit.

Truthfully though, I can find no reason why they had a custom uclibc
or busybox config.  My system is up and running fine.  Perhaps whoever
submitted them to begin with wanted to slim down the system a bit, etc.
I doubt though that someone from Soekris was responsible for submitting
the patches, their website clearly states that they are only a hardware
company and not to ask for basically anything software related. That
combined with the fact I can't even get them to answer a few simple
questions about making a volume purchase [2-5k units] of _their_
hardware ... well, I don't know what to say about that, maybe it's
for the best though as I'd rather go ARM-based, just means we'd need
some custom hardware designed, which would slow our time-to-market
a bit...

-Brad