From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:39:48 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] What's up with the kernel names? (Again) In-Reply-To: ("Thiago A. =?utf-8?Q?Corr=C3=AAa=22's?= message of "Tue\, 3 Feb 2009 23\:49\:10 -0200") References: Message-ID: <87bptiejln.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 >>>>> "Thiago" == Thiago A Corr?a writes: Thiago> Hi, Thiago> I thought it was seattled sometime last year that kernel names Thiago> would not include timestamps or any think that breaks u-boot from Thiago> loading the kernel. I thought so as well. Thiago> I just had atngw100-linux-2.6.27.13-20090203.gz for a kernel name. Thiago> It's already bad enough that rootfs has stupid timestamps, we don't Thiago> really need kernel binaries too. If I wanted to preserve binaries, I Thiago> would copy them over before building again. Whenever I type make, I Thiago> expect things to be overwritten. Thiago> As I develop a system, I don't want to find out that I'm out of Thiago> disk space because it has every single failed attempt in binaries Thiago> folder. I also don't want to touch u-boot in anyway, don't care if Thiago> there are autoscripts or not. Ideally it would be named uImage like Thiago> the kernel folks intended. Thiago> Peter, could we hear your opinion on this? At least let's make Thiago> this optional and never bother with it again. I agree. I'll look closer into it. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard