[U-Boot] [PATCH v6 20/20] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 04:22:36PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On 12 August 2014 15:05, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:00:05AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> >> Hi York (and Tom),
> >>
> >> On 11 August 2014 12:23, York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com> wrote:
> >> > On 08/09/2014 02:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> >> Since buildman now includes most of the features of MAKEALL it is probably
> >> >> time to talk about deprecating MAKEALL.
> >> >>
> >> >> Comments welcome.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>
> >> >> Changes in v6: None
> >> >> Changes in v5: None
> >> >> Changes in v4: None
> >> >> Changes in v3: None
> >> >> Changes in v2:
> >> >> - Add new patch to fix existing typos
> >> >>
> >> >>  MAKEALL | 4 ++++
> >> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/MAKEALL b/MAKEALL
> >> >> index 929fe88..dbbf74b 100755
> >> >> --- a/MAKEALL
> >> >> +++ b/MAKEALL
> >> >> @@ -60,6 +60,10 @@ usage()
> >> >>       exit ${ret}
> >> >>  }
> >> >>
> >> >> +echo "** Note: MAKEALL is deprecated - please use buildman instead"
> >> >> +echo "** See tools/buildman/README for details"
> >> >> +echo
> >> >> +
> >> >>  SHORT_OPTS="ha:c:v:s:b:lmMCnr"
> >> >>  LONG_OPTS="help,arch:,cpu:,vendor:,soc:,board:,list,maintainers,mails,check,continue,rebuild-errors"
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Simon,
> >> >
> >> > This doesn't stop this patch. Just a suggestion.
> >> >
> >> > It may be helpful to print this message at the end of output of MAKEALL. I check
> >> > the summary at the end of run carefully, but not paying too much attention at
> >> > the beginning. Beside, if I have a lot of output I may miss the beginning.
> >> >
> >> > Another suggestion for future patch is to use return value for buildman. For
> >> > now, I have to check if err files are created during building.
> >>
> >> OK I'll take a look at these.
> >>
> >> Tom, what do you think about me sending a pull request for the initial
> >> buildman patches just to get them out of the way? It seems that we
> >> might end up tweaking things a bit more and the original patches
> >> probably won't change:
> >>
> >> 74aef4b buildman: Allow selection of the number of commits to build
> >> 75c313d buildman: Introduce an 'and' operator for board selection
> >> e9f8dc3 buildman: Add a few more toolchain examples to the README
> >> 09ec73d buildman: Add a message indicating there are no errors
> >> b6817f5 buildman: Add an option to specify the buildman config file
> >> e752166 buildman: Remove unused non-incremental build method code
> >> 07f44ff buildman: Add verbose option to display errors as they happen
> >> 1d4e7a2 buildman: Refactor output options
> >> e6eeadc buildman: Sort command line options
> >> 90d17a6 buildman: Move BuilderThread code to its own file
> >> 285691e buildman: Allow building of current source tree
> >> 6ed14ca buildman: Add some notes about moving from MAKEALL
> >> ddb01e7 buildman: Fix a few typos
> >
> > I'm fine with taking everything but the final part of the series (20/20,
> > RFC on removing MAKEALL).  It'll make further testing of buildman easier
> > too :)
> 
> Are you sure? That includes the 'colour' patch at present...

Ah right, well, not that one since I said we should drop it.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20140812/4b0bb858/attachment.pgp>