On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:51:14PM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > On 9/2/07, Ward Vandewege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now; before I post my patches to the list for review, I'd like to know what > > the current thinking is on the future of buildrom. > > > > it's pretty key to our future as far as I am concerned!
ACK. > > b) there is no standardized way to use a different initrd 'skeleton' for a > > specific board > > Shouldn't we be moving to initramfs? If we do, will that make life easier? Moving? The user should have the choice whether to use initramfs or not, IMO. > > It looks like the kconfig setup for v3 will take over much (everything?) of > > what buildrom does now. If that is true, I think I might just add a few > > patches to fix b) and c) before I submit the m57sli patches. > > I don't think the v3 kconfig is going to take over completely; we > don't want to put busybox and kernel builds into v3. So, let's try to > keep buildrom working. I'm not so sure. Maybe it actually _is_ a good idea to integrate (parts of) buildrom in the v3 build process? It would sure make the "user experience" better. The question is how much work this will be. I guess we'd want to change quite a lot of buildrom's inner workings in that case (and v3's for that matter). If so, we should keep buildrom as a separate project in v2, but integrate it completely in v3. Comments? Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios