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!
There are a couple of issues with buildrom as it stands today:
a) it's v2 only
we can fix that.
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?
c) there is no standardized way to have different LinuxBIOS Config.lb files for a particular board, based on the payload
that we will need to fix, again, this will be easier in V3, I hope ... so is the answer to get v3 working on hardware and let it solve this problem?
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.
This is great stuff, thanks for your work!
ron