From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (mail-out.m-online.net [212.18.0.10]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A2E7D2E6 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47q2Bp4MnXz1rfPW; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:05:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47q2Bp43bpz1qr2j; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:05:54 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lV_591QvWqoa; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:05:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from babic.homelinux.org (host-88-217-136-221.customer.m-online.net [88.217.136.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:05:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (mail.babic.homelinux.org [127.0.0.1]) by babic.homelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4C945404DC; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:05:53 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at babic.homelinux.org Received: from babic.homelinux.org ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail.babic.homelinux.org [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fFyGCDVV5oe9; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:05:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.178.89] (stefano-MacBookPro.fritz.box [192.168.178.89]) by babic.homelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C44C454037B; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:05:50 +0100 (CET) To: Richard Purdie , Stefano Babic , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <20200103101536.2561-1-sbabic@denx.de> <67936cf2c289480b0a9b94b7ca52ba2e061c0fad.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Stefano Babic Message-ID: <0619cd66-1a7e-78a2-964d-8bafdc97e025@denx.de> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:05:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <67936cf2c289480b0a9b94b7ca52ba2e061c0fad.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] u-boot-fw-utils: Add support for libubootenv X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:05:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Richard, On 03/01/20 11:40, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 11:15 +0100, Stefano Babic wrote: >> libubootenv is a replacement for u-boot-fw-utils. It is >> hardware-independent and provides fw_printenv and fw_setenv tools >> that >> are full compatible with the ones provided by U-Boot. A library is >> provided to access the environment from an own application. >> License is LGPL-2.1 and this allow to link the library to proprietary >> code. The user of the tools should install the configuration file >> "fw_env.config", as he is already used to with u-boot-fw-utils. The >> configuration file is compatible with u-boot-fw-utils. >> > >> +PROVIDES += "u-boot-fw-utils" >> +RPROVIDES_${PN} += "u-boot-fw-utils" > > What is the ultimate intention/end goal here? Does this replace u-boot- > fw-utils? Frankly speaking, yes. The topic was discussed more as a year ago on U-Boot's ML, and libubootenv is the result of this (long) discussion: http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/SWUpdate-U-Boot-environment-library-dependency-tt340530.html#none One of the major goal is to solve the fragile connection between u-boot and u-boot-fw-utils. The need to syncronize u-boot with u-boot-fw-utils has always been a pitfall, specially when projects sets a custom BSP layer replacing U-Boot with a custom recipe, and then people wonder why board is bricked. Licensing (LGPL2.1 instead of GPLv2) is another major goal, too, that libubootenv solves. > Should we remove the other recipe? libubootenv is thought to be full compatible with u-boot-fw-utils, and it was already pushed in many projects. So yes, my proposal and final goal is then to drop u-boot-fw-utils. Anyway, I do not know if you prefer to have a "transition" time with both recipes or it is fine for you to drop soon u-boot-fw-utils. Best regards, Stefano -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic@denx.de =====================================================================