[coreboot] v2/src romfs->cbfs rename
peter at stuge.se
Tue Apr 14 10:05:39 CEST 2009
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> >> did you test with abuild :-)
> > No sir. I have neither procedure nor CPU power for abuild. :\
> Please make yourself familiar with the coreboot procedure, then:
It says "please run before commit" but not much more. An example
would be nice - how do you guys run abuild? I can add it.
> It often helps to run abuild on a few targets only.
But then it is testing less, that's not as good as a full run right?
(Agree still better than no testing!)
(Btw I did build a target, but I was not sure what would be the best
candidate. As I understood Ron no board actually uses cbfs right now.)
> (And, as you saw from my recent patches, abuild not always catches
> all breakage the build system detects. It is, nonetheless, useful)
I agree! I would however like the build system to be so consistent
that the result is always the same in and out of central abuild. I
have no idea what is causing the few problems we've seen so far
> > There is little doubt about the patch, so any errors will get
> > fixed quickly in case of mistakes. By me if I can.
> All went fine.
> > Because I have little knowledge of the cbfs usage, and zero
> > experience, I suggested someone else might be better suited to
> > create these patches. Noone did, and sed is easy enough.
> Probably noone else cared or wanted the rename.
The point is to avoid confusion. Next time someone is describing
benefits of coreboot we have a name of our own for a technology which
is our own. All ways we can make coreboot easier to grok are good,
and I think unique terms for unique things really helps (it does for
me) when climbing the learning curve.
More information about the coreboot