On 11/27/2016 02:29 AM, Mathias Kresin wrote:
I asked you three (!) times to _explain_ what this code should do
[0][1][2]. Now I see the very same code again without having ever seen
the requested explanation.
This still looks like the hackish image code that was required with
the old image build system. I guess most of the stuff can be done with
the existing build helpers.
To say it with easy understandable words: This patch will not be
merged till I get an understandable answer what this code should do. I
do not even consider doing a review before I get this answer.
Mathias
[0]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002677.html
[1]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002681.html
[2]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002744.html
Wow.
First off I would like to apologize for whatever I've done that made you
feel such an indignant reply was needed.
I'm a weekend hobbyist coder and this is my first patch set send to
LEDE. This kind of stuff is not my day job. So, I would ask that you
assume whatever offense I've committed was not intentional. Not up to
now anyway.
Here is how I previously answered your question:
> Cameo signatures are already used by a large number of devices. This
should do the same thing, but in the new makefile style. The old style
was nearly incomprehensible.
>
> I'm not doing anything obscure here. This should be self-evident. Add
a byte-aligned signature. pad-to can't do that.
>
Can you please clarify what of my previous reply it is that you don't
understand so that I can do a better job of explaining it?
I felt at the time that this answered your question. After a second
review, I am fairly certain this does answer the question as you asked it.
I am uncertain what your objection is over this makefile portion.
Thank you for your consideration.
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
