On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > Marc Jones wrote: >> > As for the build things, can we not get around stuffing all of that >> > into each payload? >> >> What do you mean? It seems to me that we want each payload >> responsible for building its own version of libpayload. > > I hadn't thought of that! Do we? Interesting. > > In a way it makes sense because different payloads need different > parts of libpayload. But thinking of it as a replacement for glibc or > at least crt0 then it isn't so nice to have more than one. This is > how I've always thought of it until now. > > But ok, say we want local libpayload per payload, then I think we > should still try to simplify things. > > Maybe provide a payload.inc Makefile stub in libpayload which the > payload Makefile simply includes after setting a variable name or > two? > > That's a different patch(set) though. :) > > Acked-by: Peter Stuge <[email protected]> > > > //Peter
Thanks Myles and Peter. r5816 Updating the wiki now. Marc -- http://se-eng.com -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
