From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Heidelberg Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:50:39 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot maintainer and stable releases In-Reply-To: References: <87prj1v4dy.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <200901071319.00644.markus.heidelberg@web.de> Message-ID: <200901081850.39916.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 Thiago A. Corr?a, 07.01.2009: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Markus Heidelberg > wrote: > > Peter Korsgaard, 07.01.2009: > >> Markus Heidelberg writes: > > > >> Right now things are kind of a mess as avr32 is lacking from most > >> upstream projects, so there's lots of big patches involved. As things > >> are now, I don't see missing avr32 as a showstopper for a first > >> release. > > > > Absolutely agreed. Especially given that there is this well-supported > > AVR32 fork (which isn't really a fork I think, it rather sits on top of > > uclibc-buildroot). > > > > This is not really true. The Atmel fork have numerous issues, and I > can't do much about them, that's exactly why I looked up to this > project. I didn't even knew what buildroot was before being introduced > to Atmel's fork. > John and Amaur, certainly had their issues with Atmel's fork as well, > since they decided to contribute AVR32 specific changes here at some > point. That probably could be said about most AVR32 user around. Given that there are numerous issues, can you at least show me a few of them? I'm interested. Everybody is calling for stable releases, HCE offers such for AVR32, but nobody is using them!? > I guess HCE and others from Atmel will only point users to Atmel's > fork because of the quality issues we have here, and lack of release. > It really doesn't look good for the company to point it's customers > here and it sudenly doesn't even build today. Agreed. > Having our quality issues and releases sorted out, it's likely that > their branch might just go away. I don't know, but I don't necessarily think so. > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > Ulf> That is why other systems like OpenEmbedded allow having more > > Ulf> than one version of a package. > > Ulf> A system that only allows a single version is really not useful. > > > > Sorry, I disagree. Most packages only have a single version and that > > works fine. Almost everything under packages builds just fine on any > [cut] > > I agree with Peter. We should strive to keep single versions only. > There are cases like DirectFB and perhaps other libs that it's not > possible, because the lib changes it's API. But in general, having > several versions of the same package will add clutter and will be a > maintenance nightmare. > Ulf, I see your point. But suggesting to have versions for every > package is too much. Perhaps we could have multiple versions for one > very important package or another but every one doesn't make sense. The point is, when you have to be stable for delivered products, you won't update any package without a reason, let alone u-boot or the toolchain. During development you can update whenever you want to. So if you really need some new versions, you can cherry-pick them from the latest buildroot into your stable-branch. No need for multiple version inside buildroot itself. Markus