Re: [ptxdist] [RFC 3/4] libptxdist: add a function to find unreferenced source directories

[Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com>]

Hei hei,

Am Montag, 9. September 2019, 08:23:00 CEST schrieb Michael Olbrich:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 03:16:51PM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 4. September 2019, 15:05:04 CEST schrieb Michael Olbrich:
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:01:58AM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > > > FWIW, we are still using different versions of at91bootstrap in
> > > > different
> > > > BSPs. The legacy version (at91bootstrap) has patches in the directory
> > > > 'patches/Bootstrap-v1.16' and the current version (at91bootstrap2) has
> > > > them in 'patches/at91bootstrap-3.8.13'.
> > > > 
> > > > If one or the other package needs fixes, let me know.
> > > 
> > > PTXdist upstream has patches for 'at91bootstrap'. Do you use those, or
> > > do
> > > you have your own patch stack in your BSP?
> > > 
> > > I'd like to remove the patches from PTXdist. It's the only packages that
> > > has a configurable version and patches for one specific version
> > > upstream.
> > 
> > We have our own patches anyway.
> > 
> > And even if not, it would also be no problem to add them to our BSP, if
> > ptxdist won't ship those anymore.
> 
> Hmm, so I noticed that I actually run build tests for this. And I'd
> probably loose those if I drop the patches...
> 
> So another Idea: From what I understand, Upstream for this is dead, so
> there will be no new version, right? Can I assume, that nowadays only
> version 1.16 is used?

This is at91bootstrap version 1, from my point of view upstream focus is now 
on version 3 only (the ptxdist package is called 'at91bootstrap2'). You choose 
one or the other depending on your SoC/board, AFAIK there are only very few 
boards supported by both, if any.

And: you can avoid at91bootstrap at all and use the SPL variant of U-Boot or 
barebox instead for this stage of the bootloaders. (We never tried that.)

> In that case I could just remove the version options and keep the patches.
> That way all my scripts are happy and it's still covered in my build tests.
> 
> Alex, would that make sense to you?

If you just want to pin the version to v1.16, I'm fine with that.

> Ladis, you submitted the last patch for this. Is this still relevant for
> you? What do you think?
> 
> Michael

Greets
Alex


_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de