From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.179]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LeS38-00080N-6Z for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:40:36 +0000 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id z25so3976957ele.18 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:40:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1236067185.4261.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <52e42efe0903010645t7de56621t59de14626953e0fe@mail.gmail.com> <1236062311.4261.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> <71cd59b00903022348u34f272cci927fe492c006125d@mail.gmail.com> <1236067185.4261.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:40:32 +0100 Message-ID: <52e42efe0903030240i22eb78dcjab2bf37d2e14694c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: libubiio : userspace UBI input output library From: Sidney Amani To: dedekind@infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Corentin Chary List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Well, I personally do not see any reason not to merge this. I just > suggest to work with mtd-utils from the very beginning. I know it looks > very messy and crappy. But you may make it better while working with it. > And that would be a great contribution as well. And this would be more > collaborative, I think. > Hi Artem, Actually yes we shouldn't work on our own side, but as we didn't feel like sending patches and patches.. It's may be possible to work on a specific branch? Anyway next time we will try to do it more collaborative. > So far, it looks like ubi-utils/new-utils would be a better place for > this, isn't it? I think so. Our lib has some redundant functionalities with libubi (e.g ubi_get_device_info), so we may want to take some functions off. Yes, mtd-utils is very messy, when will the new utils replace old one? We are probably not in the best position to do it. > But it would also be nice to send the source code to the > ML. It will unlikely get much review, but still. > Ok, we will do it. -- Sidney Amani http://uffs.org