>>>>> "Wolfgang" == Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> writes:
Hi, >> No, that would break stuff for the existing users. The existing format >> make/file names shouldn't change. Wolfgang> Well, with this argument you can block all progress and freeze all Wolfgang> development to some ancient state. We only break backwards compatibility when we have to. There's no technical reason for renaming the existing make targets. >> The FIT images could be called fitimage or uImage.new or something. Wolfgang> I disagree. We want to make this the new default, so let's Wolfgang> use the default name for this, and continue to support he Wolfgang> legacy image format using another name. Wolfgang> Also, your approach does not scale. Assume we come up with an Wolfgang> even more advanced image format in the future - how should we Wolfgang> name it then? "uImage.newer" ? "uImage.verynew" ? Wolfgang> "uImage.new2" ? Hence fitimage. The next thing will presumably be called something else again. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
