From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:06:29 +0100
Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot maintainer and stable releases
In-Reply-To: <00b501c971d5$4db0e0a0$dfc4af0a@Glamdring>
References: <87prj1v4dy.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk>
	<200901082128.59939.markus.heidelberg@web.de>
	<00b501c971d5$4db0e0a0$dfc4af0a@Glamdring>
Message-ID: <200901082306.29783.markus.heidelberg@web.de>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Ulf Samuelsson, 08.01.2009:
> > But when you already put so much stuff into uclibc-buildroot to fully
> > support AVR32, what's then remaining in HCE's tree and for what reason
> > this is not put into upstream? With your arguments, HCE doesn't need to
> > commit to his own repository at all, he could just commit everything
> > to upstream. The only purpose of his tree then would be having stable
> > and tested AVR32 releases for the customers.
> 
> That is a very important reason for it to exist.

Yes, it is. But I have the feeling, that in your opinion it is the only
reason.

> >> One of the key issues for an AVR32 developer is that they cannot
> >> commit additions to the Atmel version, so every time
> 
> > What's wrong with that? What would they want to commit?
> 
> X-Windows for a start...
> That was committed to Buildroot by John Voltz so he
> could run X on his AVR32 board.
> There are plenty of examples.

In package/x11r7/ there is only one little avr32 patch to support
xorg-server for this architecture. I think this is fine to be included
in uclibc-buildroot, as long as it is pushed upstream. I looked at
Xorg's git web interface and at least in the latest version it is
included.

So this is not a good example for a lack-of-commit-access issue with
HCE's repository.

I rather thought of examples like the big mplayer patch. This doesn't
belong into uclibc-buildroot, but into the AVR32 repo. And as I said
earlier: without commit access just send a patch to HCE. I'm sure he
would be glad to apply it to get more packages working with/optimized
for AVR32.

> Since AVR32 is a fairly new architecture, support for it does not exist
> in many packages, and maybe some developers want to put their
> own effort into bringing more packages online with AVR32 support.
> 
> > I think if you have AVR32 changes, that shouln't go into
> > uclibc-buildroot, then you could always send a patch to the
> > avr32-buildroot mailing list or HCE.
> 
> I do not know of any AVR32 changes which I do not think
> should go into uclibc-buildroot.

Then why is it a problem not to have commit access to HCE's repo?

Markus