Hi Stefan, On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:20:08PM +0200, Stefan Christ wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > *ping, is this patch acceptable? I thought about this again. I would find this message more useful from the new, updated barebox rather than from the barebox that does the update. This way we could also see the message with offline updates when for example a SD card has been updated on an external host. Also we would have more freedom to react on an outdated environment in the next steps. We could for example make it configurable to completely ignore an outdated environment or just to issue a warning message. Doing this should be fairly simple, we could store the barebox version in a nv variable and compare the variable with the current version during startup. What do you think? Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
