[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/linux

Ulf Samuelsson ulf.samuelsson at atmel.com
Sat Jan 3 20:59:23 UTC 2009

lör 2009-01-03 klockan 22:27 +0100 skrev Peter Korsgaard:
> >>>>> "Ulf" == Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson at atmel.com> writes:
> Hi,
>  Ulf> Don't see any whitespace damage in my file, there is a TAB character
>  Ulf> at the beginning of each line instead of 8 space characters.
> Sorry, my fault - Didn't notice the spaces.
>  Ulf> As for comments on 24465:
>  Ulf> Yes, I consider it an improvement that all (except one)
>  Ulf> thing that regularily changes is located in a separate file.
> You still need to change BR2_KERNEL_PATCH_LEVEL and
> see it as an advantage, and could very well imagine someone only
> updating one of the files and not the other.

BR2_KERNEL_CURRENT_VERSION should be in Config.in.versions.
It is, but it seems to be duplicated in Config.in.advanced
so I will change this.

BR2_KERNEL_PATCH_LEVEL does not need to change.
It computes the values from values in Config.in.version.

For BR2_LINUX_2_6_STABLE you have to change the *comment*
because the real change is in Config.in.advanced.

It is a drawback that you cannot do confgurable prompts like:

config BR2_LINUX_2_6_STABLE

>  Ulf> I do not think it is a good idea to remove support for kernel versions
>  Ulf> and I do not think it is a good idea to deprecate them.
>  Ulf> I fail to see any significant benefit in doing this, 
>  Ulf> and I can foresee substantial drawbacks for individual users.
> I do. It simply doesn't scale to add more config options to
> buildroot. We already now have a bunch of stuff that doesn't build,
> and adding more versions of each package makes the number of
> combinations grow exponentally.

That may be true for the filesystem, but the file system
and kernel is somewhat orthogonal.

I am all for a stable release, but that is better discussed in a
separate mail thread.

> One of the goals of getting stable releases out of the door is to be
> able to deprecate AND REMOVE old versions - More about that shortly.
> I don't think it's realistic with the available manpower to target
> much else than the latest stable version of each package - And
> spending time on older packages instead is doing a disservice to those
> projects.
>  Ulf> The deprecation of binutils-2.17 has, as you know caused
>  Ulf> extra work, which we all could benefit from avoiding.
> Why were you using such an ancient version to begin with? 2.17 is
> more than 3 years old.

Because the AVR toolset uses 2.17. There is an AVR32 toolset with 2.18
available since a few months, but before there is more
experience with this, I rather have 2.17 around.

>  Ulf> The only significant drawback of keeping multiple choice,
>  Ulf> is that the list of choices grow.
>  Ulf> By sorting the list of choices in reverse order,
>  Ulf> this is more or less nullified,.
> NOT True. Every time you make a change to those makefiles you need to
> verify that it still works with all those versions, which noone
> ofcourse does as it is too much work - and stuff breaks.
> Letting users use outdated (and likely with known bugs/security
> issues) is doing a disservice to our users and the upstream projects.

It depends on how you implement it.

> -- 
> Bye, Peter Korsgaard
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

More information about the buildroot mailing list