[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] sinclude board specific make fragment

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <7884.1120136983 at 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

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"The algorithm to do that is extremely nasty. You might want  to  mug
someone with it."                   - M. Devine, Computer Science 340