From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Samuelsson Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:06:29 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] What's up with the kernel names? (Again) References: <873aeue676.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk><87vdrpaug2.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk><1233866252.4148.12.camel@elrond.atmel.com><1233900994.26426.10.camel@elrond.atmel.com> <871vucar1o.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Ulf" == Ulf Samuelsson writes: Ulf> ?The AT91 uboot patches and autoscripts rely on this very exact naming, Ulf> so if you commit your patch, you break the at91 support. So they are broken for people using the simple linux build already? ==> The previous default was to use the advanced build, if my memory does not fail me. If you use a simple build then you do not get any help from the autoscript. Ulf> If you add KERNEL_VERSION to the root fs name you do things Ulf> automatically, if you dont then everything is manually, and you Ulf> have a risk of mismatch between name and actual version. I Ulf> would not mind that the rootfs contains kernel version, but it Ulf> will break the at91 u-boot autoscripts which means that it Ulf> should avoided at this point, and introduced in a future Ulf> buildroot. Ulf> To avoid bugs due to people forgetting to update onfig the kernel name Ulf> needs to depend BOTH on PROJECT and LINUX_VERSION. Then set prefix/suffix. ==> How can setting prefix/suffix retroactively help people that has forgotten to set prefix/suffix? >> The $(DATE) seams to be default to rootfs suffix already, all you have >> to do is change it per project to include the project or board name. Ulf> I think your major problem is that the DATE changes. Ulf> I think it is fair to allow DATE to be in the rootfs suffix. Sure, setting prefix/suffix to $(DATE) should work - But it shouldn't be default. Ulf> but I still think your needs are best accomodated by Ulf> ln -s $(LINUX_KERNEL_NAME) uImage No, lets not add any more clutter to binaries/ ==> If you do not like that solution, then letting people that want uImage , build the simple linux would work for me. But your opinion seems to be that you want to do things in a certain way, and you want to ensure that noone can do it in a different way, regardless if their use case is different from yours. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson