Jerone Young wrote: > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 12:59 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:30:44 -0600 >> Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[big snip] >> You still haven't explained why maintenance is harder or somehow less >> doable by having it in the dtc repo. Maintenance is very much the >> concern of the upstream developers, which seem to be saying it's not a >> problem for them... > > I guess what I see libfdt as something like shared userspace library. At > the moment dtc is the only userspace project to use it. So it make > perfect since to keep it with the source and not separated. > > Though when other projects need it .. the option of having to try to > figure out what version of dtc to grab so understand what libfdt is > usable, can be a bit of a pain. > > Though I can't really argue that you can't get around this by just > downloading dtc and grabbing out the libfdt package..though it does > cause some indirection. FWIIW, that is what the u-boot project is doing. The last pass, I actually extracted the libfdt git patch(es) and then applied them to the u-boot tree so that the history would be carried over. The libfdt portion is now quite stable and I don't see major changes coming that would cause this methodology to be a problem. Best regards, gvb _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
