On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Philip Balister <phi...@balister.org> wrote: > I've got a machine under development that boots from the 2013.01 recipe > and a bbappend. I don't think it is a problem moving to .03, but I don't > know. I'm not sure how many other BSP's have done the same.
If it is a full mainline machine it should be smooth; otherwise sending the patch to enable it in mainline is the best long term solution. Keeping a patch on top a recipe is a decision which ends with the maintenance burden at the developer adding the patch. External layers should not delay the additions or upgrades of recipes of OE-Core. If maintenance is a concern, upstreaming is the best choice or fork the U-Boot and keep the fork with an independent cycle. > Meanwhile, I understand the desire of others who have work upstreamed in > u-boot they like to use with the next release. And it has been a way to endorse the upstreaming effort to reduce the maintenance work. > How many u-boot releases are there a year? How do they line up with YP > releases? Should we carry two u-boot versions, similar to what happens > with the kernel? Every two months now. I see no reason to carry two versions. OE-Core provides the basis and every BSP layers can maintain their own versions. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel