[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot-tools: Allow users to use uboot's sources

[Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>]

Hi Thomas,

Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> Hi Arnout,
>
> Op 27-jan.-2014 22:28 schreef "Arnout Vandecappelle" <arnout@mind.be
> <mailto:arnout@mind.be>>:
>  >
>  > On 26/01/14 22:43, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Going a step ahead, to be more uniform with these packages, you may use
>  >> a choice construct to allow choosing between two alternatives.
>  >> Example (modified version of the code in barebox.mk
> <http://barebox.mk>):
>  >>
>  >> choice
>  >>          prompt "version"
>  >>          help
>  >>            Select the specific uboot-tools version you want to use
>  >>
>  >> config BR2_PACKAGE_UBOOT_TOOLS_LATEST_VERSION
>  >>          bool "Use a recent upstream version"
>  >>
>  >> config BR2_PACKAGE_UBOOT_TOOLS_USE_UBOOT_VERSION
>  >>          bool "Use the same sources of the uboot package"
>  >>
>  >> endchoice
>  >
>  >
>  >  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.

And here's the counterexample! So, yes, I agree we should provide a
choice.

-- 
Luca