From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanislav Vasic Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 11:39:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Buildroot] Introducing new package type, side to side with generic-package References: < CADYw_JJuE71mqxSmQtT1JKLN7d0apTS=DAz+KD7of7n3sVsWnw@mail.gmail.com> < CAAXf6LWqFR1mPtJ=w8g73R7Ut7m0wxPu_kwgn=ODW1axBx06uQ@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:27:12 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > Hi Stanislav, all, > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Stanislav Vlasic > wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> thanx for answering my question. >> >> Not sure if you noticed, but currently in my buildroot, xbmc stuff is >> tightened to Amlogic ARM platform, as well as xbmc itself. It does not >> follow mainline xbmc and also depends on some other amlogic related >> packages. Some of these packages (like libamplayerm6) are not hosted on >> my github. Reason for that is simple - they have to be rewritten and >> parts of it needs to be published as compiled libraries because of >> license issue with Amlogic. Your question still stands? :) > > The problem with buildroot forks is that many good developments in these > forks do not flow back into the mainline buildroot. This is not only > disadvantageous for mainline buildroot, but also for the fork that has > to keep up-to-date with developments in mainline buildroot. > > I hadn't heard of Amlogic before, but as far as I can tell it's just > another device manufacturer. I don't see a reason why mainline buildroot > could not contain support for such devices, and the related packages. > Buildroot is just a set of scripts and Makefiles, the actual package > sources are hosted elsewhere. > And regarding the pre-compiled libraries you talk about: if it can be > considered as a 'package' that can be downloaded, then I also don't see > a big problem. I can't promise that everything will be accepted, > but at least it would be great to try it. I agree with you. I'm going to fork buildroot repository from github and will keep it updated + adding Amlogic things step by step. Amlogic is Chinese SoC manufacturer. There are 3 different SoCs used in Buildroot for Amlogic devices. It's M1 (800 MHz single-core cpu), M3 (1GHz single core cpu) and MX/M6 (Dual-Core 1.5GHz CPU). Amlogic SoC exists in tablets, STBs (Android TV box) and smart TV-s. All forks you mentioned here are STB based, intended to run Linux XBMC on top of it. My fork covers MX/M6 platform, while Pivosgroup you mentioned covers M1/ M3 platform. It's not that easy to put it all together, but will do my best to add Amlogic support to mainline buildroot. I started doing this way I did till now because it was simple to fork eg. vDost's buildroot which was already prepared at the moment for Amlogic MX :) Anyway, I'll to keep on track, but with all the work I have, I can't tell how fast/slow it will go. > To the community: I was going to propose to create a github mirror for > buildroot to clarify which is the upstream project, but it seems one > already exists: > https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot If I search on github for > 'buildroot', I get 227 repository results :-( > Some are just personal repositories, but others are actual forks, like: > > Amlogic-related: > https://github.com/Pivosgroup/buildroot-linux > https://github.com/vDorst/buildroot > > Raspberry Pi: > https://github.com/nezticle/RaspberryPi-BuildRoot > https://github.com/gamaral/rpi-buildroot > https://github.com/huceke/buildroot-rbp > https://github.com/albertd/buildroot-rpi > > GCW0 (open-source gaming console) > https://github.com/gcwnow/buildroot > > BeagleBoard/BeagleBone: > https://github.com/nerves-project/bbone-erlang-buildroot > https://github.com/MaxGalemin/buildroot > > Maybe we should add something to the website or README regarding forks, > something saying that we strongly discourage that and are in general > open in accepting board support in mainline buildroot. But what do we do > with all the defconfigs and supporting files. I think there was some > discussion at BDD about that, but I didn't follow it well. > > Best regards, > Thomas