Peter Stuge wrote:
What would be the problem with a version "r3065"? I doubt any distributions would have a problem with that.On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:43:02PM +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote:Personally, I'm not convinced we want to do tarball releases at all, not sure it's worth the hassle. Definately not "real" releases as in flashrom 0.4.5 or so,These are very good for distributions. Not all distributions can deal with svn HEAD and few do it well IMO.
These can be generated using viewvc. I don't want to create another binary graveyard for millions of 0s and 1s ;-)but maybe one tarball per svn revision would be nice to put up on the website similar to the svn snapshots which are generated for coreboot? Stefan?Would definately be a good thing!
I am even thinking of getting rid of the tarballs, replacing them by viewvc links. The reason I did not is that viewvc does not honor the +x bit of files in the repo, so the tree migh
For the longer term I'd like a config file for flashrom that is all that ever really changes unless a new bus comes along.
ie. describing all the flash chips? I agree.
--
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] • http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
