[Buildroot] Buildroot maintainer and stable releases

Thomas Lundquist lists at zelow.no
Tue Jan 6 14:01:41 UTC 2009


On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 10:18:01PM +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> 
> I offer to do something about both: Take over maintainership and get
> atual stable releases out the door (if Erik and the other developers
> agree).

The first question then is what kind of maintainer you mean. 

The One that makes releases or The One that maintains coherency and 
vetoes big changes?

> What is the plan? Getting the first release out is always the hardest,
> so I would on purpose aim low for the first release and get it out
> soon (February).

That *is* quick.

> The target is to get all architectures to build (and
> run where hw is available for test) using the default toolchain config
> and busybox, anything else is just a bonus.

Should we have some arch_testconfig as we have defconfigs? First start
with a simple config then add more.

> I will put out the first
> release candidate early next week, so from then on please don't add
> anything else than bugfixes until the release it out. I believe in
> time based releases, so any architectures that we cannot fix in time
> will simply be disabled in kconfig (E.G. depend on BROKEN).

BROKEN or ROTTEN or something that will alert future maintainer-wannabees.

> The big issue with buildroot quality control is the mindblowing number
> of configuration combinations and specialized hardware needed to
> test. 

This has to be handles by a defined set of test cases based on more 
or less generic HW, like evaluation kits. 

And also devices actively maintained by someone wanting it to be a 
part of the test collection.

The odd cases have to be taken care of by ordinary bug tickets.

(BTW; WCHAR and LOCALE OFF is NOT a special case, it should be default.
 In my view, also LARGEFILE.)

> I am therefore convinced we need to leverage qemu and
> agressively deprecate legacy versions / packages + actively work with
> upstream to keep the number of patches low. 

I am afraid we need more than one version of the kernel (Ulf wants is also) 
and I guess also of most of the toolchain but the packages/ is another story.

If we do releases we should be able to cut down on the amount of versions in
the toolchain aswell, since comppanies should freeze on a version if they plan
to use it for years as Ulf mentioned.

> I think our users would
> also be happier with a less ambitious project that wouldn't break left
> and right, instead of the current situation.

Agreed.

First thing I guess is to agree that we want this and 
then to make test criterias.

After that, lay down which big changes we want and distribute 
maintainer responsibilities.



Thomas.



More information about the buildroot mailing list