Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 14:43 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kanavin: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador > <otavio.salvador@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to > > > see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm > > > sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't > > > just add everything! :) > > > > > > The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx. > > > > > > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It is a solid and > > commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry standard, but Barebox is also widely > > used, and it makes sense to be part of OE-Core. > > I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in > oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it: > https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox > so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of > using that layer, there's no fragmentation. > You forgot to mention https://github.com/pengutronix/meta-ptx/tree/master/recipes-bsp/barebox I did never say that fragmentation is my only motivation. Regards, Enrico -- Pengutronix e.K. | Enrico Jörns | Embedded Linux Consulting & Support | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180 | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
