uwe at hermann-uwe.de
Sun Sep 16 16:53:54 CEST 2007
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:51:14PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> On 9/2/07, Ward Vandewege <ward at 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!
> > 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.
http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the coreboot