[Buildroot] avr32 patches vs. x86 breakage
Peter Korsgaard
jacmet at uclibc.org
Fri Mar 21 09:30:33 UTC 2008
>>>>> "Nigel" == Nigel Kukard <nkukard at lbsd.net> writes:
Hi,
>> They should fix their arch and you should not add kludge to work around
>> such bugs, imo.
Nigel> In an ideal situation yes .... but buildroot is an opensource
Nigel> project with no time constraints imposed on its contributors.
But that doesn't mean that contributors don't care.
Nigel> If I contributed a patch to add an arch to GCC, and it broke 2
Nigel> months down the line when people began to use it, are you just
Nigel> going to remove it out of buildroot until it gets fixed? What
Nigel> happens if it broke support for everything except its own
Nigel> arch? What happens if there were thousands of users of it,
Nigel> more than any other arch?
If you would not be ready to support your work and no one else would
step up to do it (or if I could/would myself) - Then yes. No one gains
by stuff just sitting in the tree bitrotting.
Nigel> In this case its the AVR32 support which breaks x86 .... I'm sure there
Nigel> are more users of AVR32 than x86. 1) its impractical to remove AVR32
Nigel> support until its fixed, we don't know how long it will take 2) its
Nigel> senseless to drop support for x86 because an AVR32 patch breaks it.
Nigel> People new to buildroot trying it out don't want to scrape
Nigel> through years of mailing lists to try find these few mails
Nigel> about everything building fine on x86, then WHAM BAM
Nigel> .... corruption in the weirdest ways in the generated
Nigel> images. It puts people off and they get the first impression
Nigel> that buildroot doesn't work ... something I've seen happen
Nigel> ALOT!
True. Keeping a metadist like buildroot working for all archs and
combinations of packages is HARD.
Nigel> Only alternative I can see is adding kludge to work around
Nigel> horribly broken patches until someone fixes them or no one
Nigel> bitches and they are removed like 6-12 months later. This way
Nigel> everything works out of the box.
The problem is that noone would ever fix the real issues behind those
kludges.
Nigel> The proposed kludge isn't too bad either, its merely splitting
Nigel> the patches up into different dirs. I am willing to spin a set
Nigel> of patches to implement these changes.
Ok, I would like to hear from John first if he's going to fix the
atmel patch.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
More information about the buildroot
mailing list