[PATCH] Revert "config: tools only: add VIDEO to build bmp_logo"

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 08:30:27AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 2:02 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:52:11AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:33 AM Fabio Estevam <festevam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:18 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Did you read the original thread?
> > > >
> > > > I only read your commit log and it is not clear if it is a regression
> > > > and which commit caused the problem.
> > >
> > > I don't remember, this was back in November.
> > >
> > > > It lacks a Fixes tag too.
> > >
> > > Which are mostly pointless in U-Boot as it's not like the kernel where
> > > there's stable release cycles.
> >
> > They're quite helpful, in order to track when changes are fixing a
> > problem that was introduced by some other commit.
> >
> > > > > > - What is the exact problem you are trying to solve? How can we reproduce it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Building that tool with the tools only option.
> > > >
> > > > When I try to build U-Boot 2023.01 u-boot-tools-native in OpenEmbedded
> > > > it works fine.
> > >
> > > But does it actually build the bmp_logo tool? It builds fine for me
> > > too but that tool is no longer built.
> > >
> > > > It fails when trying to build it for the target since commit
> > > > 1cfba53ca46c ("config: tools only: add VIDEO to build
> > > > bmp_logo").
> > >
> > > Where when I build it for Fedora it builds for me and I get the
> > > bmp_logo which we used to have pre 2023.01
> > >
> > > > > > - Is it a regression? What is the commit that caused the problem you
> > > > > > are trying to solve?
> > > >
> > > > What about this part?
> > >
> > > I don't remember, see comment above.
> >
> > The unanswered question is, why does Fedora ship the bmp_logo tool? I'm
> > fairly certain it's one of the host tools that's not useful outside of
> > the build and so shouldn't be packaged.
> 
> It pre dates my time as maintainer so I actually don't know other than
> "we've basically shipped it for ever and it's impossible to tell if it
> has users", we could probably drop it and wait to see if I get bug
> reports.

OK, thanks, we'll revert this and see what the fall out, if any, ends up
being.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20230120/d22fd7e6/attachment.sig>