On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Paul Eggleton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 23 April 2011 00:09:38 Andrea Adami wrote: >> I agree with Richard, for keeping it as meta- group. >> About expectations, at least for Zaurus I don't see problems: vanilla >> 2.6.38 kernel, actual udev, imminent move to xorg-xserver if kdrive is >> finally doomed. >> >> Ipaq's seem suffering more bitrot... > > This is a problem, yes. Most of the iPAQs require 2.6.21-hh which is ancient > and unmaintained and as we know presents difficulties with modern udev. Some > of > the iPAQs will work with mainline but many functions will be unavailable. This > is something I hope can be sorted out - surely by now a lot of the "ip blocks" > used within iPAQs and other PDAs are now in mainline already and all that's > necessary is some plumbing...? > > Anyway, I'm concerned that if these machines get pushed out to some random > repo it's only going to make things worse. I think we can mitigate the > concerns about people rushing in only to find that the level of support for > their device is less than they hoped simply by being crystal clear about each > device's status in documentation (e.g. a wiki page), something which we have > not been good at recently. (Am I volunteering to maintain this information as > well? Naturally :) ) >
we can host it on its own repo and not under meta-openembedded umbrella. As long as it is maintained its good > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > > Paul Eggleton > Intel Open Source Technology Centre (UK) > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
