Hi, On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 04:38:34PM +0100, Gabor Juhos wrote: > 2013.01.07. 16:59 keltezéssel, Paul Fertser írta: > > These targets need custom image names specified in the uImage header. > > MkImage accepts an optional 4th argument to do exactly that. Reuse the > > facility to generate proper sysupgrade images suitable also for > > upgrading the factory firmware. > > Applied with some changes.
As far as i understand, the way you did it will produce both factory.bin files (suitable for the sysupgrade utility and the vendor's interface) and sysupgrade.bin (that would work only with the sysupgrade utility). Isn't that adding an unnecessary complexity and causing more confusion for the users and developers? OTOH, when the vendor tools require some uncommon format it's meaningless to try to support it with "sysupgrade" so it makes sense to generate two different images. Shouldn't there be established a policy regarding that? As a user i would prefer to have a single image (without "sysupgrade" or "factory" in its name) whenever possible to have only one binary for both usecases. Alternatively, i'd require every target to generate both -factory and -sysupgrade images but if they can be identical, they should be (cp will be enough). More consistency in naming is needed, imho, so i propose to decide on that. -- Be free, use free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) software! mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
