On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 06:41:19AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
* Uwe Hermann <uwe(a)hermann-uwe.de> [070703
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).
I like the way doing the forks as they really allow us to progress with
new code while leaving old code intact.
It may make sense for LinuxBIOS to "fork" as in "we don't modify v2
start fresh with v3" from time to time when really big changes are needed.
It does not make sense for common, independant utilities such as
flashrom. Flashrom works with v1, v2, and v3. Why should we fork it for
I'm not saying to put _all_ utilities in there, if a tool is specific to
a certain LinuxBIOS version, we should keep it in that code tree, of
course. So 'newconfig' or 'optionlist' stays in v2. Also,
stays in v3, as we cannot sensibly use it in other versions (too many
local v3-specific modifications).
But common utilities should be moved to the global util/ directory.
and i'm not sure, but i
think that in some cases, the likes of uniflash can be used to flash a
Definately, not everyone needs flashrom.
util in a seperate repo/directory is a bit hypothetic. It does not
really gain us anything.
Yes, it does. We can put common utilities which are independent of
LinuxBIOS-versions in there.
The alternative, just having another flashrom copy in v3 (for
example), would basically fork flashrom and there's no reason to do that,
Everyone does need lar, but should we pack lar
and flashrom in the same repo because it sits in util?
Why would someone want lar when he attempts to download flashrom?
You don't have that problem, you can easily get flashrom without lar:
svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk/util/flashrom
Why would someone not download flashrom? To save how
That's not the reason to do this stuff; you always get flashrom when you
download v2 as it's an svn:externals.
If we add it to v3, you'll always get flashrom when you checkout v3.
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.
There is no copy in v3?
Not yet. Shall we add it?