On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 12:07, Paul Gortmaker <[email protected]> wrote: > Contrast that with attempting to maintain what amounts to an > "intel-defconfig" setup - which will always try to please everyone > across all boards and procfams -- and hence will never please anyone.
... > The directory name with "common" in it is an unfortunate bit of history > that dates back to 2005 when support for a "common-pc" was modeled after > a kernel defconfig and a COTS white-box Pentium4 home computer of the day. > > So, ignore the "common" -- the world has changed and so has intel -- there > are now a wide range of x86 processors and platforms. The idea of > having a "one config fits all" never really worked, but it definitely > does not work in 2023. I beg to differ, strongly. I do enjoy meta-intel having only two (and a half) machine definitions, and will resist attempts to degrade it to an arm-like zoo of boards. The generic machines work pretty well and keep me pleased: you can build any image against them, and that image will boot on any reasonable x86 hardware, from the laptop in front of me to various industrial PCs (I had three different customers with them just in the past 6 months). On the other hand, targeting specific boards will inevitably mean that those targets will get less testing and QA, will break mysteriously due to that, and will not be covering the complete list of what is out there. And so what if the existing machines enable everything under the sun and install it onto the image? If conserving disk space is a business requirement, it can be addressed by replacing recommendations with a targeted list of modules and firmwares. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#12230): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/linux-yocto/message/12230 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/97420986/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/linux-yocto/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
