On 16/09/07 15:08 -0300, Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: > 2007/9/16, Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I'm not so sure. Maybe it actually _is_ a good idea to integrate (parts > > of) buildrom in the v3 build process? It would sure make the > > "user experience" better. The question is how much work this will be. > > I guess we'd want to change quite a lot of buildrom's inner workings in > > that case (and v3's for that matter). If so, we should keep buildrom > > as a separate project in v2, but integrate it completely in v3. > > > > Comments? > > I think this is a good idea. Currently the most hard work is not to > compile LinuxBIOS, but it is compile and create an rootfs. I used > buildroot to create the LBdistro (my dirt hack) and I think buildroot > can be integrated as an option to compile a LAB (Linux As Bootloader > but we can refer it also as Linux As Bios).
I do agree that we should figure out a way to transition building the LAB and initramfs images to buildroot (which is better suited for the process anyway). > I think it can be checkbox option to call the buildroot and compile > linux and all programs. I am a little worried if the multiple nested makefiles would be a strain on older machines. But we can give it a shot and see what happens. Do you have a buildroot default config we can use as an example? Jordan -- Jordan Crouse Systems Software Development Engineer Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
