On 20:06 Fri 28 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 12:48 Fri 28 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > > > boot [method]: If called without method, it will iterate over > > > /env/boot.d/*. If that directory does not exist, > > > it will fall back to a single boot source, which you > > > haven't specified, so the script will complain. If you > > > give [method], that will be one of /env/boot/[method] > > > or /env/boot.d/[method]. If [method] exists in both > > > directories, the behaviour will be unspecified. > > This was your request to do this this way > > Whatever I said, until recently I haven't even noticed that > this script recursively calls itself. I also did not realize > that this script intermixed two completely different things with > 10 lines boot sequence, 10 lines not and then 10 lines maybe boot > sequence. > > > > > THe first version was keeping the old boot.default and ask you to enable the > > boot sequence specifycally and then you ask me to drop this to make the boot > > sequence by default > > > > so now I've hardware ready to be send on the way with this next with boot > > sequence mandatory > > The -next branch is explicitly declared non stable. You shouldn't ship > prerelease software and expect that it doesn't change. with the tag next-stable expect so we need to put some rules so the next does not end up with a I apply but will see if used specially 6 days to the release Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
