From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Heidelberg Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:50:05 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot maintainer and stable releases In-Reply-To: <1231326832.32308.320.camel@elrond.atmel.com> References: <87prj1v4dy.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <200901070409.42558.markus.heidelberg@web.de> <1231326832.32308.320.camel@elrond.atmel.com> Message-ID: <200901071250.05379.markus.heidelberg@web.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Ulf Samuelsson, 07.01.2009: > ons 2009-01-07 klockan 04:09 +0100 skrev Markus Heidelberg: > > CC-ing Hans-Christian Egtvedt > > > > Peter Korsgaard, 06.01.2009: > > > >>From talking with HcE on IRC, it seems like the Atmel fork of > > > buildroot is the recommended solution for avr32 users anyway. > > > > I wonder, why many of the patches are also included in uClibc's > > Buildroot then. Don't the avr32 users use Atmel's Buildroot? I'm an > > avr32 user myself and only use Atmel's Buildroot for development. One > > drawback is that I'm not up-to-date with uClibc, because these changes > > are only seldom merged into the Atmel branches, only short before their > > release candidates. So I end up working on another file base, which > > doesn't ease integration of changes into uClibc's Buildroot. I could > > merge myself, a branch "upstream" is available and is updated often, but > > that doesn't make sense somehow. I haven't yet tried it, so I don't know > > whether it will cause some hassle or not. > > I think it is desirable to have more people contributing > with testing and patches. Then what's the purpose of buildroot-avr32, when you seem to say uclibc-buildroot should be used for AVR32 development? A personal playground for HCE and cherry-picking for you into uclibc-buildroot? Surely not. This repository is well-tested for all of Atmel's AVR32 boards for every release and even during the release candidates. > > I haven't yet asked why this merge happens so rarely. Maybe lack of > > time? OK, I'm already getting avr32-buildroot specific, but I think > > updating the "devel" branch would be nice, even without testing > > anything. Currently the three branches "devel", "master" and > > "atmel-2.3" are the same, pointing to the latest release. > > Lack of time is the answer. > The way it works is that HCE is doing the Atmel Branch > and I am working on the main svn (even if HCE is providing > patches from time to time). > > >>From time to time I am taking HCEs additions > from the Atmel branch and update the devel branch, > but I did really not have time to do anything > during most of the autumn. What is the devel branch you mentioned? Above I refered to the devel branch from HCE, I don't think you work on his devel branch, I haven't seen a commit from you there. Do you mean uclibc-buildroot? See my comment above. Why picking commits from HCE, making his repository more valueless, because everything is also in uclibc-buildroot and at the same time risk breaking it or prevent updating packages (mplayer for example)? Markus