In message 7884.1120136983@huldra you wrote:
As I said in the description, this allows board specific make targets such as "install", or other board specific targets that might need to be included in the $(ALL) make variable.
If make targets are placed in the board specific "config.mk", the first such target becomes the default make target, instead of "all", which is declared later in the main Makefile.
This is something I don't like. "config.mk" is intended to hold configration information needd for the make, nothing else. Definitely no make targets or rules or things like that.
Actually the board specific "config.mk" files might be romved one day.
make targets placed in the board specific Makefile can't be called from the top level directory.
Do you reallyneed your own private make targets?
One stat and a bit of text parsing is hardly going to slow things down much.
Not much, but a bit here and a bit there and all for a feature that nearly nobody ever uses...
CHANGELOG entry missing, too.
Sorry, I didn't know one was needed.
See the README.
The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and notify Murray Jensen on
I'm sorry, but I don't think I can include such stuff into the public source tree anyway.
Sigh, we have been over this before, many moons ago. I cannot send email publically without including the standard disclaimer required by CSIRO, my employer.
Then make sure that an appropriate note about the patch being copyrighted by you and available under GPL is included with your patch.
Whether you accept it into the main u-boot cvs repository or not is irrelevant.
Indeed. Actually nobody should dare to use your patches given that in their current form they are released in violation of the GPL (by placing unaccetable restrictions on the content: "confidential or privileged ... unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited").
As long as people can access the archives of this mailing list, they can access my changes and therefore I have complied with the spirit of the GPL.
They can access the patches, but they cannot use these without risking of being sued for "unauthorised use" of "privileged" information.
disclaimers, by my reading of it, it only says that the information in the email *may* be "confidential or privileged" - and if so, CSIRO retains all rights to it. Since this is all GPL code, I can't see how the disclaimer
And who says that you released your patches under GPL? Your company lawyer might stand ready to sue us all telling us that the "may" means: yes, this *is* "confidential or privileged".
If you cannot avoid the trailer, then make clear that it does not apply, please.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk