On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 11:54:55AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alper, > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 13:17, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On 2023-08-24 06:02 +03:00, Simon Glass wrote: > > > In this early stage of using binman to produce output files, we are mostly > > > seeing people using common extensions such as '.bin' and '.rom' > > > > > > But unusual extensions appear in some places. > > > > > > We would like 'buildman -k' to keep the build outputs, but this is hard if > > > there is no consistency as to the extension used. > > > > > > This series adjusts binman to enforce just 4 extensions for output images: > > > > > > .bin > > > .rom > > > .itb > > > .img > > > > > > Other extensions will produce an error. With this rule observed, buildman > > > can keep the required files. > > > > I dislike this limitation. We know what files we will generate, they are > > listed in binman dtb, so we can add something like `binman build --ls` > > to print their names/paths for buildman to preserve them. > > Yes, it would be good to have that... > > But why do you dislike the limitation? Do you think extensions provide > useful information? I suppose one problem is that *.bin might pick up > private blobs that happen to be in the source directory?
I think all of the complaints thus far have shown the problem with trying to enforce an arbitrary limit here. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
