Hello everyone! Thanks for contributing directly to the page. It's great to see this done collaboratively.
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 23:38 +0100, Stefano Babic wrote: > Hi Philip, > > On 06/12/2016 19:45, Philip Balister wrote: > > On 12/06/2016 06:11 AM, Lopez, Mariano wrote: > >> I agree with you, that we need to have a section per project, the table > >> is too limiting. > > > > I just skimmed the page and the table format isn't working well with the > > length of the blocks of text. > > > > Agree - I think it is better to have a section per project. That always has been the goal, and I now updated the page accordingly. I tried to summarize the key aspects of each mechanism in the table itself. That's something that I haven't seen elsewhere and something that the page can I tried to be as fair and objective as possible, please shout if I messed something up or you don't agree with my summary. In particular the "complexity" column is a bit subjective. Stefano, I hope you don't mind that I did not quite buy the "easy to use" characterization of swupdate ;-) For a system that is as flexible as swupdate, I'd expect a more difficult learning curve and some need to customize the system before using it, so I added a "(but requires customization!?)" comment to that statement. Kristian, I added a comment that Mender requires U-Boot. That is correct, isn't it? I understand that this restriction allows you to implement things like automatic rollback, but it's worth mentioning that this comes with that limitation. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto