* RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling
@ 2007-02-16 18:00 Koen Kooi
2007-02-16 18:14 ` Philip Balister
2007-02-16 21:02 ` Harald Welte
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2007-02-16 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Linux Distributions; +Cc: Harald Welte
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
After spending some time going trough u-boot recipes trying to make sense of its
buildsystem, I noticed some strange problems and inconsistencies.
First the easy part: we need *one* spelling for u-boot, instead of uboot, u-boot, u-bot,
etc. What is the preferred one nowadays?
Second: it seems that the 'mkimage' tool is at least arch speficic (at worst
board-specific), so uboot recipes should install it to
${STAGING_NATIVE_DIR}/mkimage.u-boot.${MACHINE_ARCH}
what do you think about all this?
regards,
Koen
CC: to Harald because I'm not sure he's on oe-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFF1fFPMkyGM64RGpERAsM2AKCo48tTjyY1DPoTYDp/41E8sOOMTQCeO8T8
urHBB7VH79uq3fyR/9jBzk4=
=E7Ei
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling
2007-02-16 18:00 RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling Koen Kooi
@ 2007-02-16 18:14 ` Philip Balister
2007-02-16 21:02 ` Harald Welte
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Philip Balister @ 2007-02-16 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel; +Cc: Harald Welte
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1333 bytes --]
The u-boot web page is http://sourceforge.net/projects/u-boot so I
suggest we standardize on u-boot. Also the tarballs are u-boot-....
I also like your suggesting for installing mkimage.
Philip
Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> After spending some time going trough u-boot recipes trying to make sense of its
> buildsystem, I noticed some strange problems and inconsistencies.
>
> First the easy part: we need *one* spelling for u-boot, instead of uboot, u-boot, u-bot,
> etc. What is the preferred one nowadays?
>
> Second: it seems that the 'mkimage' tool is at least arch speficic (at worst
> board-specific), so uboot recipes should install it to
> ${STAGING_NATIVE_DIR}/mkimage.u-boot.${MACHINE_ARCH}
>
> what do you think about all this?
>
> regards,
>
> Koen
>
> CC: to Harald because I'm not sure he's on oe-devel
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFF1fFPMkyGM64RGpERAsM2AKCo48tTjyY1DPoTYDp/41E8sOOMTQCeO8T8
> urHBB7VH79uq3fyR/9jBzk4=
> =E7Ei
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling
2007-02-16 18:00 RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling Koen Kooi
2007-02-16 18:14 ` Philip Balister
@ 2007-02-16 21:02 ` Harald Welte
2007-02-16 21:19 ` Koen Kooi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Harald Welte @ 2007-02-16 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Koen Kooi; +Cc: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Linux Distributions
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:00:47PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> After spending some time going trough u-boot recipes trying to make sense of its
> buildsystem, I noticed some strange problems and inconsistencies.
>
> First the easy part: we need *one* spelling for u-boot, instead of uboot, u-boot, u-bot,
> etc. What is the preferred one nowadays?
u-boot is the official name, so I would recommend to go for that (even
though I hate hyphens inside project names)
> Second: it seems that the 'mkimage' tool is at least arch speficic (at worst
> board-specific), so uboot recipes should install it to
> ${STAGING_NATIVE_DIR}/mkimage.u-boot.${MACHINE_ARCH}
are you sure it's arch specific? I'm quite surprised about that, since
the uImage format contains a header indicating the architecture, doesn't
it?
If it really uses a different binary format for each arch, yes, we
should change it. 'mkuimage.${MACHINE_ARCH}' sounds like a more user
friendly name, though.
--
- Harald Welte <laforge@openmoko.org> http://openmoko.org/
============================================================================
Software for the world's first truly open Free Software mobile phone
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling
2007-02-16 21:02 ` Harald Welte
@ 2007-02-16 21:19 ` Koen Kooi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2007-02-16 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Welte; +Cc: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Linux Distributions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Harald Welte schreef:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:00:47PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
>> After spending some time going trough u-boot recipes trying to make sense of its
>> buildsystem, I noticed some strange problems and inconsistencies.
>>
>> First the easy part: we need *one* spelling for u-boot, instead of uboot, u-boot, u-bot,
>> etc. What is the preferred one nowadays?
>
> u-boot is the official name, so I would recommend to go for that (even
> though I hate hyphens inside project names)
>
>> Second: it seems that the 'mkimage' tool is at least arch speficic (at worst
>> board-specific), so uboot recipes should install it to
>> ${STAGING_NATIVE_DIR}/mkimage.u-boot.${MACHINE_ARCH}
>
> are you sure it's arch specific?
I'm not sure, but mkimage refuses to build with all kind of missing definitions if you
don't have a board configured. It could be some safeguard to force people to have a board
definition.
> I'm quite surprised about that, since
> the uImage format contains a header indicating the architecture, doesn't
> it?
>
> If it really uses a different binary format for each arch, yes, we
> should change it. 'mkuimage.${MACHINE_ARCH}' sounds like a more user
> friendly name, though.
And it avoid the hyphens :)
regards,
Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFF1h/GMkyGM64RGpERAro9AJsGhesMzZ7CV8ooPz9L25+wQVdEJQCfQJ66
KUR4UJy42goEBy1tAkjBtVE=
=bM7g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-02-16 21:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-02-16 18:00 RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling Koen Kooi
2007-02-16 18:14 ` Philip Balister
2007-02-16 21:02 ` Harald Welte
2007-02-16 21:19 ` Koen Kooi
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.