From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 23:10:44 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot-tools: Allow users to use uboot's sources In-Reply-To: References: <1390696553-4163-1-git-send-email-maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com> <52E530D5.20405@lucaceresoli.net> <52E5816F.9080102@lucaceresoli.net> <52E69898.2080805@mind.be> Message-ID: <20140128231044.71270cec@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:02:56 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > > Actually, I don't even see the need to ask the user anything. If we are > building U-Boot, I don't see why we would ever want to use the U-Boot tools > from upstream - that just adds a risk of incompatibility between the two. > > > > So I would propose to remove the BR2_PACKAGE_UBOOT_TOOLS_UBOOT_SOURCE > option, and instead make it conditional on BR2_TARGET_UBOOT. > > I don't agree here. Real life example: we are using vendor-provided uboot, > and want to set an env-image in our flash devices' factory image. While > this version of uboot clearly supports handling the env at a specified > location, it does not (yet) provide the mkenvimage tool. > In this case, we actually want a more recent uboot tools package that does > have mkenvimage. My conclusion is thus that we should provide the choice. Then maybe you should just patch your vendor U-Boot to add mkenvimage, and that's it? :-) Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com