On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 01:32:36AM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:00:57PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
I fully agree with the earlier stuff, but is there any reason to keep this in the v3 tree? People will not be that unhappy if they're required to pull in the flashrom utility seperately,
I fully agree, it's not required. Some developers have expressed in the past that they like to keep all our code together in one 'svn co' bunch.
I don't have a strong opinion either way (as long as we don't have _forks_ of code for v1 and v2, which is why we now use svn:externals).
and i'm not sure, but i think that in some cases, the likes of uniflash can be used to flash a linuxbios too.
Definately, not everyone needs flashrom.
I personally don't think there should be a place in the v3 tree for a utility like this, as it leads an almost completely independent life.
Yes, and it should. The copy in v2/v3 is merely there for convenience.
Uwe.
I fully understand and support the v2 copy, but for v3 i don't see the point myself. Maybe other people have an opinion here.
Luc Verhaegen.