>>> I just think of ar71xx and ath79, where we have the same device but
>> different targets. Of course, the name won't be exactly equal, as ath79 will
>> have e.g. tplink_ prefix and ar71xx won't.
>> Isn't ar71xx removed from master builds? It's neither at snapshot
>> https://downloads.openwrt.org/snapshots/targets/ nor planed to be re-
>> added to any upcoming release, is it?
>
> Yes, but it's just an example for a similar situation which might arise in
> the future. Then, we even might not have the current situation with the
> different device names, but may end up with completely identical names except
> for the target.
>
>>> For bcm63xx, we have two subtargets that build the same devices.
>>> If we look at PR#2957, we might have a now bmips target at some point
>> that features the same devices as bcm63xx.
>> Can you please explain why that's the case? Why do we offer different
>> images for the same device? I understand that for ar71xx -> ath79 within a
>
> I don't have any idea why this situation at bcm63xx exists; I just got aware
> of it at some point. Maybe Noltari or KanjiMonster can help ...
>
>> transfer period but it's never the scope to offer different "flavors"
>> long term, is it?
>>> This won't necessarily break anything, as images will still be in different
>> folders (at least in /bin).
>> I would be at least confusing and reverts the "unique profile name" idea.
>>> However, we couldn't tell the difference between ar71xx/ath79 or similar
>> from the image name (easily) after this change, or whether it's generic or
>> smp for bcm63xx. For my personal taste, this drawback is bigger that the gain
>> we will get from removing the target/subtarget part.
>> Again, this sounds like a undesirable state where we not only build but also
>> maintain multiple images for the save device. Wouldn't it be possible to add
>> the target to all those "legacy images", however remove it wherever a target
>> uses device tree and images.mk aka has long term support?
>
> Well, just look at the situation in 19.07. There we have both ar71xx and
> ath79 for the same devices, and even if we wanted, it would actually be quite
> hard to really filter out the ath79 devices in ar71xx. I really don't think
> removing the target from image names will pay out in the future.
>
>>> So, unless there is overwhelming support, I tend to NAK this.
>> :(
>
> A compromise could be found by just removing the subtarget, but keeping the
> target in file names. This would mostly solve your problem with the generic
> names (at least there would be less duplicate info), but there would be
> significantly less situations where this was an impediment. Normally, no
> duplicate devices in a target exist, and if they are moved between
> subtargets, they are actually moved and not copied. The only remaining
> problem I can think of at the moment would be the bcm63xx situation, and
> maybe that one can be resolved at low cost.
>
> Best
>
> Adrian
What about x86-{generic,legacy,64,...}? These subtargets each define a
device just called "generic", with the image names only distinguished by
their subtarget name.
Matthias
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
