From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao11.cox.net (fed1rmmtao11.cox.net [68.230.241.28]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9184C67A67 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:33:14 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:33:12 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Kumar Gala Message-ID: <20050310143312.GO3098@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20050310082639.GA19275@gate.ebshome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev list Subject: Re: build failure for 2.6.11-mm2 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 08:06:04AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > right, but if you look back in the pervious -mm builds that past, they > also did not have mkImage but still succeeded. > > It appear some change is now report the lack of mkImage as a build > error. If this is desired behavior, should we maybe look at having a > copy of its source in the kernel tree? I think what's happened, but I haven't verified is that Andrew took an incorrect patch to make 'mkuboot.sh', which invokes mkimage to produce a uImage, fail if mkimage isn't found. This isn't right. The problem the patch was trying to fix is that mkuboot.sh will say that it made a uImage, even if mkimage isn't found. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/