Stefan Reinauer wrote:
did you test with abuild :-)
No sir. I have neither procedure nor CPU power for abuild. :\
Please make yourself familiar with the coreboot procedure, then: http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines
It says "please run before commit" but not much more. An example would be nice - how do you guys run abuild? I can add it.
It often helps to run abuild on a few targets only.
But then it is testing less, that's not as good as a full run right? (Agree still better than no testing!)
(Btw I did build a target, but I was not sure what would be the best candidate. As I understood Ron no board actually uses cbfs right now.)
(And, as you saw from my recent patches, abuild not always catches all breakage the build system detects. It is, nonetheless, useful)
I agree! I would however like the build system to be so consistent that the result is always the same in and out of central abuild. I have no idea what is causing the few problems we've seen so far though. :\
There is little doubt about the patch, so any errors will get fixed quickly in case of mistakes. By me if I can.
All went fine.
Yep!
Because I have little knowledge of the cbfs usage, and zero experience, I suggested someone else might be better suited to create these patches. Noone did, and sed is easy enough.
Probably noone else cared or wanted the rename.
The point is to avoid confusion. Next time someone is describing benefits of coreboot we have a name of our own for a technology which is our own. All ways we can make coreboot easier to grok are good, and I think unique terms for unique things really helps (it does for me) when climbing the learning curve.
//Peter