On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador <otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to >> see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm >> sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't >> just add everything! :) >> >> The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx. > > > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It > is a solid and commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry > standard, but Barebox is also widely used, and it makes sense to be part of > OE-Core.
I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it: https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of using that layer, there's no fragmentation. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#177191): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/177191 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96956667/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
