[Buildroot] Buildroot maintainer and stable releases
markus.heidelberg at web.de
Thu Jan 8 22:06:29 UTC 2009
Ulf Samuelsson, 08.01.2009:
> > But when you already put so much stuff into uclibc-buildroot to fully
> > support AVR32, what's then remaining in HCE's tree and for what reason
> > this is not put into upstream? With your arguments, HCE doesn't need to
> > commit to his own repository at all, he could just commit everything
> > to upstream. The only purpose of his tree then would be having stable
> > and tested AVR32 releases for the customers.
> That is a very important reason for it to exist.
Yes, it is. But I have the feeling, that in your opinion it is the only
> >> One of the key issues for an AVR32 developer is that they cannot
> >> commit additions to the Atmel version, so every time
> > What's wrong with that? What would they want to commit?
> X-Windows for a start...
> That was committed to Buildroot by John Voltz so he
> could run X on his AVR32 board.
> There are plenty of examples.
In package/x11r7/ there is only one little avr32 patch to support
xorg-server for this architecture. I think this is fine to be included
in uclibc-buildroot, as long as it is pushed upstream. I looked at
Xorg's git web interface and at least in the latest version it is
So this is not a good example for a lack-of-commit-access issue with
I rather thought of examples like the big mplayer patch. This doesn't
belong into uclibc-buildroot, but into the AVR32 repo. And as I said
earlier: without commit access just send a patch to HCE. I'm sure he
would be glad to apply it to get more packages working with/optimized
> Since AVR32 is a fairly new architecture, support for it does not exist
> in many packages, and maybe some developers want to put their
> own effort into bringing more packages online with AVR32 support.
> > I think if you have AVR32 changes, that shouln't go into
> > uclibc-buildroot, then you could always send a patch to the
> > avr32-buildroot mailing list or HCE.
> I do not know of any AVR32 changes which I do not think
> should go into uclibc-buildroot.
Then why is it a problem not to have commit access to HCE's repo?
More information about the buildroot