From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:15:13 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot maintainer and stable releases In-Reply-To: <200901090013.01339.markus.heidelberg@web.de> (Markus Heidelberg's message of "Fri\, 9 Jan 2009 00\:13\:01 +0100") References: <87prj1v4dy.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <200901082306.29783.markus.heidelberg@web.de> <1231453993.9711.27.camel@elrond.atmel.com> <200901090013.01339.markus.heidelberg@web.de> Message-ID: <87priwrgbi.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 >>>>> "Markus" == Markus Heidelberg writes: Markus> I have never objected. But it depends on the type of the Markus> patch. A simple patch that adds some architecture specific Markus> configurations (endian or something) to get it working Markus> belongs to uclibc-buildroot. And even there it can require Markus> some investigation to update the patch, if the source code Markus> base has changed. And this investigation should be avoided Markus> with pushing it upstream. Markus> But a huge patch that adds lots of optimization code Markus> (mplayer) definetly belongs to avr32-buildroot. I agree - Or atleast not in the buildroot I care about. Same with feature patches, like the ones recently added to U-Boot. We really need to keep patches to a minimum (and push them upstream) to stay sane. I repeat, Buildroot is not a dumping ground for random patches. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard