On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 01:32:36AM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote: > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:00:57PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > I fully agree with the earlier stuff, but is there any reason to keep > > this in the v3 tree? People will not be that unhappy if they're required > > to pull in the flashrom utility seperately, > > I fully agree, it's not required. Some developers have expressed in the > past that they like to keep all our code together in one 'svn co' bunch. > > I don't have a strong opinion either way (as long as we don't have > _forks_ of code for v1 and v2, which is why we now use svn:externals). > > > > and i'm not sure, but i > > think that in some cases, the likes of uniflash can be used to flash a > > linuxbios too. > > Definately, not everyone needs flashrom. > > > > I personally don't think there should be a place in the v3 tree for a > > utility like this, as it leads an almost completely independent life. > > Yes, and it should. The copy in v2/v3 is merely there for convenience. > > > Uwe.
I fully understand and support the v2 copy, but for v3 i don't see the point myself. Maybe other people have an opinion here. Luc Verhaegen. -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios