From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eumx.net ([91.82.101.43]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UBOgk-0008PK-7z for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:03:54 +0100 Message-ID: <51309549.8010502@communistcode.co.uk> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:47:21 +0000 From: Jack Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: [RFC] U-Boot Recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: ml@communistcode.co.uk 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, 01 Mar 2013 12:03:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Today I was building an image for the beaglebone with oe-core + meta-beagleboard. meta-beagleboard pretty much provides the machine definition and the kernel. In order to build the correct u-boot (2013.01+) I had to add u-boot 2013.01 to oe-core. Whilst during this I noticed the mess that the u-boot directory had become, I think we need to have a show of hands who uses what u-boot recipes and can they migrate to newer (common) versions. When I submit a patch to get 2013.01 supported, that would make 4 different releases of u-boot; which seems a bit excessive. Thoughts? -- Jack Mitchell (jack@embed.me.uk) Embedded Systems Engineer http://www.embed.me.uk --