On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:41:22AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 15 September 2014 15:33, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > >> I think it is a way better base for work but I really don't care as I > >> use my own recipe in fsl-arm and so does TI. > > > > And that's the problem really isn't it. :) Why do you both use your > > own recipe, instead of keeping the u-boot in oe-core up to date?
The way we use it in meta-ti, is to include u-boot.inc file and add any SRCREV bumps or patches on top. So, the base gets reused. > Well we both require patches; this does not mean we ought to not keep > OE-Core in sync (or close to). > > This is the reason why I advocate for the inclusion. Denys were > working on this update for a while but he must have been pulled out of > it due work commitments as usual ... so it ended sent now. Correct. I meant to finish and submit it last month, but got pulled into resolving other critical issues, hence the delay, sorry. I've submitted a v2 version that splits the changes into 2 patches - cleanup and update. Please provide comments. -- Denys -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
