[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/3] barebox: add custom version option

[Fabio Porcedda]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Dear Fabio Porcedda,
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 08:49:04 +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>
>> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:41:41 +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
>> >
>> >> -config BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_2013_01
>> >> -     bool "2013.01.0"
>> >> -
>> >> -config BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_2013_02
>> >> -     bool "2013.02.0"
>> >> -
>> >> -config BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_2013_03
>> >> -     bool "2013.03.0"
>> >> -
>> >> -config BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_2013_04
>> >> +config BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_LATEST_VERSION
>> >>       bool "2013.04.0"
>> >>
>> >> +config BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_CUSTOM_VERSION
>> >> +     bool "Custom version"
>> >> +     help
>> >> +       This option allows to use a specific official versions
>> >> +
>> >
>> > We need to have something that is consistent between U-Boot, Barebox
>> > and the kernel. Currently U-Boot has a version selection, the Linux
>> > kernel allows to chose the latest version (but with an option named
>> > after the version itself, so the name of the option changes when the
>> > version changes) or a custom version, and now for Barebox you're
>> > proposing yet another solution: select the latest version (with an
>> > option name that never changes) or a custom version.
>>
>> I think it's easier to have a option name that doesn't change.
>> If there isn't a specific reason to have a option name that changes
>> then I will send a patch to change the linux kernel option name.
>>
>> BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_3_9 -> BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_LATEST_VERSION
>
> I don't really have a strong opinion about this thing, probably Peter
> and Arnout have more ideas than I do on this.
>
> The only thing I care about is to not make modifications specifically
> on Barebox that are inconsistent with what is done on U-Boot, the
> kernel, or other version-selectable components. For example, U-Boot
> still allows to chose between several recent versions, which would make
> it inconsistent with the patches you're proposing, and that's the thing
> I don't like.

In the patch set v3 barebox is consistent with the kernel.

If you are speaking just about consistency, I can send a patch for U-Boot too.
IMHO the kernel way is more flexible, so if we must choose only one method,
the kernel way is better.

A problem with having only the latest three version available
is that barebox and u-boot release frequency are very different.
Barebox have 12 release per year, U-Boot only 4.
The latest three release of U-Boot cover nine months but the latest
three release of barebox cover only three months.
So if a defconfig use a specific barebox version, that defconfig can
be used only for three months.
I think that three months is not enough.

It's better if i send patch for U-Boot too?

Best regards
Fabio Porcedda

> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
> --
> Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
> Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
> development, consulting, training and support.
> http://free-electrons.com

--
Fabio Porcedda