|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Bluechip forkingRe: Bluechip forking
From: sophana <jobarjo78_at_yahoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:24:22 +0200 Björn Stenberg wrote: >sophana wrote: > > >>the linux kernel has TONs of options (with xconfig...) >>rockbox has a (very small) configure script. It should exploited better, >>don't you think? >> >> > >More options means more builds, and more combinations in which to hunt bugs. > >And the fact is that most people (I'd guess >95%) don't know how to compile their own build, and so for the vast majority this work would be wasted. > > > I totally agree that options brings complexity. But it brings features also! I don't think the option management would be wasted. It allows your mod to evolve with rockbox. making a web interface script for configuring and compiling rockbox from cvs would be great. there is actualy some code for maintaining all the archos hardware versions. This same code could serve the additional optionnal rockbox features? a specific make target would try to do a compile-regression test with all option space. maybe the firmware-linkable plugin feature would allow people to compile their mod everytime with rockbox, but the user would choose dynamically the features he wants by loading or not the plugin... At work, we made a modified version of gmake and a set of rules which does handle that kind of problems. Too bad it is not released. All the great features contributed by lot of people make rockbox a great piece of code. The more feature there are the greater rockbox will be. (in my opinion) >>The number of waiting patches is clearly high... >> >> > >Yes, but that is not helped much by making branches in the version control system. A branch is no different than a patch. > > > _______________________________________________ http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox Received on 2004-06-08 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |