From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QDvbK-0002ZZ-PE for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 11:27:34 +0200 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2011 02:25:06 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,262,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="737632206" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.12.207]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2011 02:25:06 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton Organization: Intel Corporation (UK) To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:25:03 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic-pae; KDE/4.6.1; i686; ; ) References: <201104211704.37707.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <1303413680.5518.359.camel@rex> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201104241025.03973.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] meta-handheld X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:27:35 -0000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday 23 April 2011 00:09:38 Andrea Adami wrote: > I agree with Richard, for keeping it as meta- group. > About expectations, at least for Zaurus I don't see problems: vanilla > 2.6.38 kernel, actual udev, imminent move to xorg-xserver if kdrive is > finally doomed. > > Ipaq's seem suffering more bitrot... This is a problem, yes. Most of the iPAQs require 2.6.21-hh which is ancient and unmaintained and as we know presents difficulties with modern udev. Some of the iPAQs will work with mainline but many functions will be unavailable. This is something I hope can be sorted out - surely by now a lot of the "ip blocks" used within iPAQs and other PDAs are now in mainline already and all that's necessary is some plumbing...? Anyway, I'm concerned that if these machines get pushed out to some random repo it's only going to make things worse. I think we can mitigate the concerns about people rushing in only to find that the level of support for their device is less than they hoped simply by being crystal clear about each device's status in documentation (e.g. a wiki page), something which we have not been good at recently. (Am I volunteering to maintain this information as well? Naturally :) ) Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre (UK)