Hi Tom, On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 08:08, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 05:39:30PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Tom has indicated that he would like Patman to move out of his tree. I > > suggested on another thread[1] that I maintain it in my 'sjg' tree, so > > here is a new thread to discuss this. > > > > I have already done this for the qemu/efi/coreboot scripts as Tom has > > NAK'ed patches for those. > > > > For the other tools there is going to be quite a bit of churn, as I > > would like to resolve most of the many Python warnings. > > > > Given the shared source between the tools, it would be easier for me > > to do the same for buildman, binman and qconfig. I am thinking that I > > might try a move to allow Gitlab pull-requests for reviews on these as > > well as the mailing list, if that is useful. > > > > For tools which need to sync back to Tom's tree (i.e. not patman), I > > or Tom could do a pull request every now and then, omitting any > > changes that relate to pylint. > > > > Please let me know your thoughts. The timing is good as I am going to > > be sending out a new Patman feature in the next few weeks and it is a > > few thousand more lines of code. > > My biggest objection to all of this is that you should NOT use > sjg.u-boot.org as that perpetuates your abusing owning u-boot.org. As I > said in the thread, it should be under https://source.denx.de/u-boot/ > somewhere and you should be the one to own it there.
I wish you would stop bringing this up. Until things change, that is unfortunately what I have to do, to avoid being blocked. > They should be > managed like normal python projects and we could "pip install" what's > needed. But yes, I do think them being managed like a regular python > project instead will make your life, and also the rest of the > communities life, easier. > > Un-bundling binman and making it a standalone tool might help make it > easier for other projects to utilize it instead of reinventing the > tooling themselves. > > I'm not sure why buildman and qconfig would need to be pulled out, but > if it's just a matter of a "pip install", sure, fine. Actually, for me, I quite like being able to do a release with a single 'make' command for all tools. I was not thinking of having completely different repos. So this isn't really about 'pip install'. Sadly I doubt other projects will adopt Binman so we are going to have lots of firmware-packaging tools eventually*. After all, we have Arm's FIP file format, Linaro wrote a new bloblist implementation, etc. Regards, Simon * although we did use it with Zephyr in ChromeOS
