[coreboot] [v2] r4188 - trunk/coreboot-v2/targets/hp/dl145_g3
mylesgw at gmail.com
Tue Apr 28 04:22:08 CEST 2009
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why should there be multiple?
> I guess because we intended there to be :-)
If there's not a problem, I won't push it.
> Sometimes people want fallback, sometimes not, on the same board.
> Other things change. The layout for linux as bootloader is sometimes
> wildly different than other types of bootloaders. By setting up
> multiple Config.lb files we were trying to show the users that there
> was flexibility. If you only have one there, they might think there
> can only be one.
>> Who do you mean? I think it should be a habit for users to customize one
>> Config.lb. Having many files makes it hard to keep them updated. An
>> example of that is the Kontron abuild that only builds fallback. The
>> Config.lb builds normal and fallback, so now abuild doesn't check the
>> "default" config file's build.
> If the user customizes the Config.lb in the targets tree, their
> customizations get wiped on the next svn up. Our intent was to make it
> easy to copy and modify it. That's why bulidtarget takes either the
> directory name (and assumes Config.lb) or a file name.
> That said, one could argue that our plans for the use of Config.lb
> have not worked out; I'm not going to object too much to what you all
> come up with.
It's not the top priority. I was just surprised to hear that
Config-abuild.lb was the preferred config for anybody. I thought they
were only there to work around brokenness.
More information about the coreboot