From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:13:36 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] u-boot: Allow to specify a list of patches In-Reply-To: References: <1405448794-10517-1-git-send-email-ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <20140715205341.77237719@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20140715201336.GE3351@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Ezequiel, Thomas, All, On 2014-07-15 16:49 -0300, Ezequiel Garc?a spake thusly: > On 15 July 2014 15:53, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: > > Dear Ezequiel Garcia, > > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:26:34 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >> It's often desirable to specify a list of patches, in addition to the current > >> support to pass a directory full of uboot-*.patch files. This matches the > >> option currently available for specifying Linux patches, except this commit > >> doesn't add the URL option. Relying on URLs is fragile and makes a build hard > >> to reproduce. > >> > >> U-Boot is as special as Linux, in the sense that it needs to be customized more > >> often than not, so having a flexible mechanism is useful. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia > >> --- > >> Config.in.legacy | 14 ++++++++++++++ > >> boot/uboot/Config.in | 11 ++++++----- > >> boot/uboot/uboot.mk | 12 ++++++++---- > >> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > We now have BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR, so I believe that what we would > > recommend to use from now on. We have even been talking about removing > > the Linux-specific and U-Boot specific patching config options. > > > > Yeah, Yann already said that on IRC when I asked him about this patch. > You guys are really in sync! :) > > The thing is that Linux and U-Boot are not the regular package, since > almost every BR user using it for a custom product will need to > customize the kernel and the bootloader to some extent. > > At least from my perspective, it's nice to have the patches (instead > of pointing to some git branch) and be forced to see what > modifications I'm using. > > And to produce the patches, I use git-format-patch (aren't we all?), > which doesn't allow to specify a prefix for the patches. This has been > discussed and rejected, so don't think the feature will ever be added. Now I remember that we talked about this on IRC the other day. The more I think about it, the more I find our policy to require PKG-prefixed patches to be really cumbersome, since the patches already are in a subdir named PKG/ Of course, we're enforcing this naming scheme in BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR to be in sync with what we do for our bundled patches. But still, if patches were just named NNNN-title.patch, that would be as efficient at sorting the patches. The PKG- prefix is not really required, and indeed can cause some troubles with some use-cases, such as yours. Thomas, was there a specific reason we wanted the patches to be PKG-prefixed? If not, would it make sense to just accept patches without a PKG-prefix? Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'