From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brad House Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801 In-Reply-To: <1187588089.31921.67.camel@elrond.sweden.atmel.com> References: <20070819210930.1D668A60EF@busybox.net> <46C8F332.2000001@mainstreetsoftworks.com> <1187588089.31921.67.camel@elrond.sweden.atmel.com> Message-ID: <46C98486.3070105@mainstreetsoftworks.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>> Log: >>> UPdate Soekris Linux config to 2.6.22.1 >>> >>> Modified: >>> trunk/buildroot/target/device/Soekris/net4801/linux26.config >>> >> Thanks for committing that update... Any reason the other part of >> my patch didn't make it (mainly the removal of the busybox and uclibc >> configs)? >> > > Yes, I can't judge the consequences of that action. > That does not mean that the proposed patch is rejected. > Just that I will not do it. > > Are you related to the manufacturer of the H/W? > > I will leave that decision to Someone Else(tm) > > What I can do, is to add another x86 target, without those files... No, I have no affiliation with soekris. My company is just looking at them as a possible hardware vendor for our embedded application, and I've been just submitting patches which fixed problems I've encountered. I guess my main motivation for having all the patches committed is purely selfish as it's easier for them to be upstream than maintaining an overlay patchset. That said, I think others could benefit. Truthfully though, I can find no reason why they had a custom uclibc or busybox config. My system is up and running fine. Perhaps whoever submitted them to begin with wanted to slim down the system a bit, etc. I doubt though that someone from Soekris was responsible for submitting the patches, their website clearly states that they are only a hardware company and not to ask for basically anything software related. That combined with the fact I can't even get them to answer a few simple questions about making a volume purchase [2-5k units] of _their_ hardware ... well, I don't know what to say about that, maybe it's for the best though as I'd rather go ARM-based, just means we'd need some custom hardware designed, which would slow our time-to-market a bit... -Brad