On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:51:14PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
On 9/2/07, Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org wrote:
Now; before I post my patches to the list for review, I'd like to know what the current thinking is on the future of buildrom.
it's pretty key to our future as far as I am concerned!
ACK.
b) there is no standardized way to use a different initrd 'skeleton' for a specific board
Shouldn't we be moving to initramfs? If we do, will that make life easier?
Moving? The user should have the choice whether to use initramfs or not, IMO.
It looks like the kconfig setup for v3 will take over much (everything?) of what buildrom does now. If that is true, I think I might just add a few patches to fix b) and c) before I submit the m57sli patches.
I don't think the v3 kconfig is going to take over completely; we don't want to put busybox and kernel builds into v3. So, let's try to keep buildrom working.
I'm not so sure. Maybe it actually _is_ a good idea to integrate (parts of) buildrom in the v3 build process? It would sure make the "user experience" better. The question is how much work this will be. I guess we'd want to change quite a lot of buildrom's inner workings in that case (and v3's for that matter). If so, we should keep buildrom as a separate project in v2, but integrate it completely in v3.
Comments?
Uwe.