This adds the same line (uses CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD) to every Options.lb file that already had a "uses CONFIG_COMPRESSED_PAYLOAD_LZMA" line in it.
I figure that only adding it to the files that already have support for LZMA payloads makes sure I don't break anything.
Myles
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson myles@pel.cs.byu.edu
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:02:16PM -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
This adds the same line (uses CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD) to every Options.lb file that already had a "uses CONFIG_COMPRESSED_PAYLOAD_LZMA" line in it.
If I understood correctly there should be a corresponding default CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD x
line in the target/ Options.lb files.
//Peter
This adds the same line (uses CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD) to every Options.lb file that already had a "uses CONFIG_COMPRESSED_PAYLOAD_LZMA" line in it.
If I understood correctly there should be a corresponding default CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD x
line in the target/ Options.lb files.
None of the architectures have a default CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD.
Since "uses CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD" allows you to use the option, but doesn't force it, I don't think you need the default line. It might be better style. There are a lot of CONFIG_... options that don't have defaults in the Options.lb files, though.
Myles
This is a resend. Does anyone have objections to this patch still?
It adds "uses CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD" to the Options.lb files so that buildrom can build for these targets only changing the Config.lb file, instead of patching the Options.lb files as well.
Myles
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Myles Watson myles@pel.cs.byu.edu Date: Nov 7, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: [PATCH] many trivial patches To: Linuxbios linuxbios@linuxbios.org
This adds the same line (uses CONFIG_PRECOMPRESSED_PAYLOAD) to every Options.lb file that already had a "uses CONFIG_COMPRESSED_PAYLOAD_LZMA" line in it.
I figure that only adding it to the files that already have support for LZMA payloads makes sure I don't break anything.
Myles
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson myles@pel.cs.byu.edu
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:58:03AM -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
This is a resend. Does anyone have objections to this patch still?
Did you check with abuild that all boards still build fine after the patch? Did you compare the sizes, i.e. does it make a real difference in behaviour of the build, or is it just a "cosmetical" change?
Uwe.
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:55:19PM +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:58:03AM -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
This is a resend. Does anyone have objections to this patch still?
Did you check with abuild that all boards still build fine after the patch? Did you compare the sizes, i.e. does it make a real difference in behaviour of the build, or is it just a "cosmetical" change?
It's not cosmetic. Without this patch, we can't have an LZMA precompressed payload for the board (which is an option in buildrom).
If the boards still build (which I suspect they will),
Acked-by: Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org
Thanks, Ward.
This is a resend. Does anyone have objections to this patch still?
Did you check with abuild that all boards still build fine after the patch? Did you compare the sizes, i.e. does it make a real difference in behaviour of the build, or is it just a "cosmetical" change?
It's not cosmetic. Without this patch, we can't have an LZMA precompressed payload for the board (which is an option in buildrom).
As I understand it, all the precompressed payload option does is tells the build process not to try to run lzma on the payload when LZMA compression is enabled.
It allows buildrom to use its own compiled version of lzma instead of the one that the user might have in his path.
Since I didn't set the variable, but just allowed it to be set in the future, my hypothesis is that it changes nothing for abuild.
I'm running abuild now.
If the boards still build (which I suspect they will),
Acked-by: Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org
Thanks, Myles
I'm running abuild now.
It passes abuild.
Thanks, Myles
If the boards still build (which I suspect they will),
Acked-by: Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:16:39PM -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
I'm running abuild now.
It passes abuild.
Excellent, commit away!
Thanks, Ward.
If the boards still build (which I suspect they will),
Acked-by: Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 03:21:34PM -0500, Ward Vandewege wrote:
Acked-by: Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org
Thanks, r3002.
Uwe.