On 13 January 2012 10:09, Danilo Šegan wrote:
> Hi Ryan, Guilherme, all,
>
> У чет, 12. 01 2012. у 17:35 -0300, Guilherme Salgado пише:
>>
>> I'm wondering... do you have any use cases for the none and all
>> options?
I don't have a use case for none, but it was easy to add and I
considered it
Hi Ryan, Guilherme, all,
У чет, 12. 01 2012. у 17:35 -0300, Guilherme Salgado пише:
>
> I'm wondering... do you have any use cases for the none and all
> options?
At least the 'all' option should make sense: I remember reading that
UEFI can happily live alongside a different boot loader as well,
On 01/13/2012 10:38 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 17:35 -0300, Guilherme Salgado wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to make hwpacks include just one
bootloader (whichever is chosen by the hwpack author)?
This could make the transition difficult. Some users (like LA
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 17:35 -0300, Guilherme Salgado wrote:
> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to make hwpacks include just one
> bootloader (whichever is chosen by the hwpack author)?
This could make the transition difficult. Some users (like LAVA) require
U-Boot, whereas others might want to us
Hi Ryan,
I'm replying with a copy to linaro-dev@ as I believe adding support to
UEFI into l-m-c will require a new hwpack format, which is something
that needs discussion with a wider audience.
On 11/01/12 13:51, Ryan Harkin wrote:
> Hi Danilo,
>
> Ok, as we agreed, I've had a hack at the l-m-c
