From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:30:33 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] avr32 patches vs. x86 breakage In-Reply-To: <1206090774.2562.82.camel@nigel-x60> (Nigel Kukard's message of "Fri\, 21 Mar 2008 09\:12\:54 +0000") References: <1206079232.2562.60.camel@nigel-x60> <87k5jw34gp.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20080321085200.GB8894@mx.loc> <1206090774.2562.82.camel@nigel-x60> Message-ID: <874pb01l1i.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Nigel" == Nigel Kukard writes: Hi, >> They should fix their arch and you should not add kludge to work around >> such bugs, imo. Nigel> In an ideal situation yes .... but buildroot is an opensource Nigel> project with no time constraints imposed on its contributors. But that doesn't mean that contributors don't care. Nigel> If I contributed a patch to add an arch to GCC, and it broke 2 Nigel> months down the line when people began to use it, are you just Nigel> going to remove it out of buildroot until it gets fixed? What Nigel> happens if it broke support for everything except its own Nigel> arch? What happens if there were thousands of users of it, Nigel> more than any other arch? If you would not be ready to support your work and no one else would step up to do it (or if I could/would myself) - Then yes. No one gains by stuff just sitting in the tree bitrotting. Nigel> In this case its the AVR32 support which breaks x86 .... I'm sure there Nigel> are more users of AVR32 than x86. 1) its impractical to remove AVR32 Nigel> support until its fixed, we don't know how long it will take 2) its Nigel> senseless to drop support for x86 because an AVR32 patch breaks it. Nigel> People new to buildroot trying it out don't want to scrape Nigel> through years of mailing lists to try find these few mails Nigel> about everything building fine on x86, then WHAM BAM Nigel> .... corruption in the weirdest ways in the generated Nigel> images. It puts people off and they get the first impression Nigel> that buildroot doesn't work ... something I've seen happen Nigel> ALOT! True. Keeping a metadist like buildroot working for all archs and combinations of packages is HARD. Nigel> Only alternative I can see is adding kludge to work around Nigel> horribly broken patches until someone fixes them or no one Nigel> bitches and they are removed like 6-12 months later. This way Nigel> everything works out of the box. The problem is that noone would ever fix the real issues behind those kludges. Nigel> The proposed kludge isn't too bad either, its merely splitting Nigel> the patches up into different dirs. I am willing to spin a set Nigel> of patches to implement these changes. Ok, I would like to hear from John first if he's going to fix the atmel patch. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard