From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 12:11:59 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/3] barebox: add custom version option In-Reply-To: References: <1366184503-16875-1-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <1366184503-16875-2-git-send-email-fabio.porcedda@gmail.com> <20130501231009.787484f5@skate> <20130503105531.1b38a88e@skate> Message-ID: <20130503121159.41c63ece@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Fabio Porcedda, On Fri, 3 May 2013 11:17:32 +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote: > In the patch set v3 barebox is consistent with the kernel. > > If you are speaking just about consistency, I can send a patch for > U-Boot too. IMHO the kernel way is more flexible, so if we must > choose only one method, the kernel way is better. > > A problem with having only the latest three version available > is that barebox and u-boot release frequency are very different. > Barebox have 12 release per year, U-Boot only 4. > The latest three release of U-Boot cover nine months but the latest > three release of barebox cover only three months. > So if a defconfig use a specific barebox version, that defconfig can > be used only for three months. > I think that three months is not enough. I think what you say makes sense. > It's better if i send patch for U-Boot too? Yes. I would however maybe wait for the opinion of others like Arnout, Peter or Gustavo. Maybe they disagree with my opinion, and I don't want you to do extra work that may not be accepted in the end. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com