From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1QaCip-0002B9-Nf for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:11:26 +0000 Received: by bwf12 with SMTP id 12so246127bwf.36 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] prepare new nanddump options, defaults From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Brian Norris Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:11:12 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <1308761363-16512-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <1308841377.23597.10.camel@sauron> <1308841503.23597.12.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <1308946279.13493.29.camel@koala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: David Woodhouse , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Mike Frysinger Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 10:37 -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > Are the "ubi-utils" and "tests" meant to have the option of compiling > separately from the other mtd-utils? Probably not. > Are these tools ever distributed separately? If not, do they need to > be independently buildable? I do not think that we need ubi-utils to be buildable separately. > It looks to me like ubi-utils is dependent > on first compiling "lib", but otherwise, they can all be built > separately... Anyway, I think this kinda screws with the centralized > VERSION thing above. > Why is mtdinfo under ubi-utils? Perhaps it should be moved when it > replaces flash_info? I think this is a fair interpretation of Item 3 > in the feature-removal plan... Yeah, it can be moved. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)