Hi,
after a quick poll on IRC on what to do with the svn:externals in util/, we pretty much agreed that removing them is the way to go.
People who need those tools can still fetch them at the original location in the repository, and already checked out trees will continue to carry those directories.
If you have any good reason why this shouldn't happen, or that another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them), speak up.
Time's up at 20:00 CEST
Regards, Patrick
Patrick Georgi wrote:
Hi,
after a quick poll on IRC on what to do with the svn:externals in util/, we pretty much agreed that removing them is the way to go.
People who need those tools can still fetch them at the original location in the repository, and already checked out trees will continue to carry those directories.
If you have any good reason why this shouldn't happen, or that another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them), speak up.
Time's up at 20:00 CEST
This has been a real pain for me in the past.
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de
On 05.10.2009 14:04, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Patrick Georgi wrote:
Hi,
after a quick poll on IRC on what to do with the svn:externals in util/, we pretty much agreed that removing them is the way to go.
People who need those tools can still fetch them at the original location in the repository, and already checked out trees will continue to carry those directories.
If you have any good reason why this shouldn't happen, or that another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them), speak up.
Time's up at 20:00 CEST
This has been a real pain for me in the past.
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de
If the new tools download location is mentioned in the wiki: Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Patrick Georgi wrote:
after a quick poll on IRC on what to do with the svn:externals in util/, we pretty much agreed that removing them is the way to go.
Acked-by: Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se
another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them),
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
//Peter
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
Patrick Georgi wrote:
after a quick poll on IRC on what to do with the svn:externals in util/, we pretty much agreed that removing them is the way to go.
Acked-by: Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se
Acked-by: Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de
another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them),
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
Ack, leave them where they are now (separate from the coreboot-v2 dir). Everybody can easily get the tools with one extra svn invokation:
svn co svn://coreboot.org/repos/trunk/util
If you're too lazy to type or copy-paste this one line you have other problems already ;-)
Uwe.
Peter Stuge wrote:
another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them),
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
For the following utilities it does not make sense to keep them separate:
* nvramtool * superiotool * getpir * mptable * inteltool * ectool and maybe also for msrtool. We can put that in a separate repository, too, if you prefer it to be not associated with coreboot directly.
Stefan
On 05.10.2009 14:56, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Peter Stuge wrote:
another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them),
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
For the following utilities it does not make sense to keep them separate:
Sorry, -ENOPARSE. Are you saying they should not be separate from each other or they should not be separate from the v2 tree?
- nvramtool
- superiotool
- getpir
- mptable
- inteltool
- ectool
and maybe also for msrtool. We can put that in a separate repository, too, if you prefer it to be not associated with coreboot directly.
I think a common coreboot-utils repo would be great, but having them in a not-checked-out-by-default-with-v2 directory in the v2 repo is absolutely OK for me.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 05.10.2009 14:56, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Peter Stuge wrote:
another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them),
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
For the following utilities it does not make sense to keep them separate:
Sorry, -ENOPARSE. Are you saying they should not be separate from each other or they should not be separate from the v2 tree?
The latter.
- nvramtool
- superiotool
- getpir
- mptable
- inteltool
- ectool
and maybe also for msrtool. We can put that in a separate repository, too, if you prefer it to be not associated with coreboot directly.
I think a common coreboot-utils repo would be great, but having them in a not-checked-out-by-default-with-v2 directory in the v2 repo is absolutely OK for me.
But why? It's possible to just check out svn://coreboot.org/repos/trunk/coreboot-v2/utils as it is possible to check out svn://coreboot.org/repos/trunk/utils
Especially stuff like (our modified versions of) mptable and getpir make no sense outside the scope of coreboot.
Stefan
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
For the following utilities it does not make sense to keep them separate:
- nvramtool
- superiotool
- getpir
- mptable
- inteltool
- ectool
and maybe also for msrtool.
Ie. all that are external. :)
But.. Um, what are you proposing?
We can put that in a separate repository, too, if you prefer it to be not associated with coreboot directly.
Hm. If there is a single util place I think that's where msrtool should go, associated or not.. Or? But if there are several util places I am already confused..
Was it a mistake to create trunk/util?
//Peter
Peter Stuge wrote:
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
For the following utilities it does not make sense to keep them separate:
- nvramtool
- superiotool
- getpir
- mptable
- inteltool
- ectool
and maybe also for msrtool.
Ie. all that are external. :)
But.. Um, what are you proposing?
We can put that in a separate repository, too, if you prefer it to be not associated with coreboot directly.
Hm. If there is a single util place I think that's where msrtool should go, associated or not.. Or? But if there are several util places I am already confused..
Was it a mistake to create trunk/util?
I think so... it did not help.. the only difference is now all those tools are not checked out by a coreboot checkout anymore.
I believe we should svn mv coreboot-v2 coreboot-devel and svn mv util/* coreboot-v2/util
Any acks?
Stefan
On 10/08/2009 08:37 PM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Peter Stuge wrote:
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
For the following utilities it does not make sense to keep them separate:
- nvramtool
- superiotool
- getpir
- mptable
- inteltool
- ectool
and maybe also for msrtool.
Ie. all that are external. :)
But.. Um, what are you proposing?
We can put that in a separate repository, too, if you prefer it to be not associated with coreboot directly.
Hm. If there is a single util place I think that's where msrtool should go, associated or not.. Or? But if there are several util places I am already confused..
Was it a mistake to create trunk/util?
I think so... it did not help.. the only difference is now all those tools are not checked out by a coreboot checkout anymore.
I believe we should svn mv coreboot-v2 coreboot-devel and svn mv util/* coreboot-v2/util
Any acks?
Yes I like this idea. Acked by: Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org
Anyone else?
Hello! Acked by: Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net
I am offering one because Joe asked and it seemed almost like a good idea. Feel free to turn it down or accept it with comments. -- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net "The Force will be with you always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
-----Original Message----- From: coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org]
On
Behalf Of Joseph Smith Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:06 PM To: Stefan Reinauer Cc: coreboot@coreboot.org Subject: Re: [coreboot] removal of svn:externals in v2's util/
On 10/08/2009 08:37 PM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Peter Stuge wrote:
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
No - please don't do that. We're trying to make them separate, not put them back in again.
For the following utilities it does not make sense to keep them separate:
- nvramtool
- superiotool
- getpir
- mptable
- inteltool
- ectool
and maybe also for msrtool.
Ie. all that are external. :)
But.. Um, what are you proposing?
We can put that in a separate repository, too, if you prefer it to be not associated with coreboot directly.
Hm. If there is a single util place I think that's where msrtool should go, associated or not.. Or? But if there are several util places I am already confused..
Was it a mistake to create trunk/util?
I think so... it did not help.. the only difference is now all those tools are not checked out by a coreboot checkout anymore.
I believe we should svn mv coreboot-v2 coreboot-devel and svn mv util/* coreboot-v2/util
Any acks?
Yes I like this idea. Acked by: Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org
Anyone else?
-- Thanks, Joseph Smith Set-Top-Linux www.settoplinux.org
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
On 09.10.2009 02:37, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
I believe we should svn mv coreboot-v2 coreboot-devel and svn mv util/* coreboot-v2/util
Any acks?
AFAICS this would break every coreboot v2 tree out there for no gain.
NACK. Sorry.
I'm willing to change my mind if I hear compelling reasons to do so.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 09.10.2009 02:37, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
I believe we should svn mv coreboot-v2 coreboot-devel and svn mv util/* coreboot-v2/util
Any acks?
AFAICS this would break every coreboot v2 tree out there for no gain.
Yes, there is a gain: We don't have a coreboot v4 version being called v2.
Version tags is what the tags/ directory in svn is for.
Stefan
Hello! Am I too late to comment? I am willing to go either way regarding an appropriate method. Both methods actually do work for me.
For example I was able to check out the utility programs using the method Uwe proposed in a later e-mail concerning what can happen, and I've also managed to update the currently available flashrom toolkit.
-- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net "The Force will be with you always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
-----Original Message----- From: coreboot-bounces+hansolofalcon=worldnet.att.net@coreboot.org
[mailto:coreboot-
bounces+hansolofalcon=worldnet.att.net@coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Patrick
Georgi
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:52 AM To: coreboot@coreboot.org Subject: [coreboot] removal of svn:externals in v2's util/
Hi,
after a quick poll on IRC on what to do with the svn:externals in util/, we pretty much agreed that removing them is the way to go.
People who need those tools can still fetch them at the original location in the repository, and already checked out trees will continue to carry those directories.
If you have any good reason why this shouldn't happen, or that another course of action (eg. moving the tools into the coreboot v2 repository, so everyone gets them), speak up.
Time's up at 20:00 CEST
Regards, Patrick
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Gregg C Levine -
Joseph Smith -
Patrick Georgi -
Peter Stuge -
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann