On 9/2/07, Ward Vandewege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now; before I post my patches to the list for review, I'd like to know what > the current thinking is on the future of buildrom. >
it's pretty key to our future as far as I am concerned! > There are a couple of issues with buildrom as it stands today: > > a) it's v2 only we can fix that. > b) there is no standardized way to use a different initrd 'skeleton' for a > specific board Shouldn't we be moving to initramfs? If we do, will that make life easier? > c) there is no standardized way to have different LinuxBIOS Config.lb files > for a > particular board, based on the payload that we will need to fix, again, this will be easier in V3, I hope ... so is the answer to get v3 working on hardware and let it solve this problem? > > It looks like the kconfig setup for v3 will take over much (everything?) of > what buildrom does now. If that is true, I think I might just add a few > patches to fix b) and c) before I submit the m57sli patches. I don't think the v3 kconfig is going to take over completely; we don't want to put busybox and kernel builds into v3. So, let's try to keep buildrom working. This is great stuff, thanks for your work! ron -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
