[coreboot] romfs name and v3

[Peter Stuge]

ron minnich wrote:
> Sure. But look where the people are spending their time .... it is
> not on v3. Where are companies putting in $$$ -- save for artec,
> not on v3.

I think only my company and coresystems have been strong corporate
drivers in the v3 design. Today Artec can leverage that, which I
think is good. I want to, and will, keep making v3 easy to deal with,
just not right now. I think you're saying that you feel the same way.


> 30 months is too long. V2 has come very far. I learned when I started
> the SMP work on kontron just how far. The amount of effort to catch up
> is huge.

I trust that.


> And, there are some features we lose. Abuild. The code checking
> stuff patrick did.
> 
> I'm not saying that no one should keep pushing v3; I am saying,
> however, that I have learned what I need to learn and I want to
> bring it back to v2.

Nod. I think you're making a good decision.


> People who wish to continue on v3 are free to do so!

Yes! I will, slowly, but I will.


> > I completely disagree with this however. It is totally possible
> > but there has to be a will.
> 
> There has to be money.

If money is the only driving factor. This is by the way also an
interesting topic. We haven't tried much in the way of fundraising
for the community. I think there could be ways to make that succeed.


> What money there is is going to v3. I can't change that.

(v2) Well, we could try to decide on our own, by having own money.


> As for the name I am still unsure. Are we really going to require
> that the name have no intersection with every other OS, firmware,
> and BIOS out there? That won't be easy ...

I think it is important to at least steer clear of other things which
are not mutually exclusive with coreboot. If we're talking an fs name
it's important to avoid intersection with other filesystems, ie. what
is found in OS kernels. Not many firmware or BIOSes have established
a filesystem name so it's easy to avoid an intersect with those.

If we're talking an *ar name, it makes similar sense to avoid e.g.
tar and star. They exist somewhere else, they could theoretically be
related (maybe we reused their format in our scope) but those names
are poor for us, since they are in fact not related at all.

(Renaming lar to tar and creating .tar files doesn't make it
compatible with any other tar. :)


//Peter