On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Myles Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why should there be multiple? > > I guess because we intended there to be :-)
If there's not a problem, I won't push it. > Sometimes people want fallback, sometimes not, on the same board. > Other things change. The layout for linux as bootloader is sometimes > wildly different than other types of bootloaders. By setting up > multiple Config.lb files we were trying to show the users that there > was flexibility. If you only have one there, they might think there > can only be one. True. >> Who do you mean? I think it should be a habit for users to customize one >> Config.lb. Having many files makes it hard to keep them updated. An >> example of that is the Kontron abuild that only builds fallback. The >> Config.lb builds normal and fallback, so now abuild doesn't check the >> "default" config file's build. > > If the user customizes the Config.lb in the targets tree, their > customizations get wiped on the next svn up. Our intent was to make it > easy to copy and modify it. That's why bulidtarget takes either the > directory name (and assumes Config.lb) or a file name. > > That said, one could argue that our plans for the use of Config.lb > have not worked out; I'm not going to object too much to what you all > come up with. It's not the top priority. I was just surprised to hear that Config-abuild.lb was the preferred config for anybody. I thought they were only there to work around brokenness. Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
