On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 11:02, Enrico Jörns <[email protected]> wrote: > My impression was that the actual amount of things to share would not justify > another file. > It is mainly license information, SRC_URI and a bit of metadata where I found > it more obvious to > have them in the respective recipe. > > If having shared parts in a barebox-common.inc is actually preferable, I > could rework this of > course.
It is yes. They are the same between recipes, and so should be specified once. > > Also there should be a good DESCRIPTION in there. Why > > barebox, and not u-boot, for example? > > Trying to outdo other projects was not my intention. > So I would like to omit such comparisons from the description. > > My current summary: > > "barebox is a bootloader designed for embedded systems. > It runs on a variety of architectures including x86, ARM, MIPS, PowerPC and > others." > > does not yet get the point of a bootloader? > I also thought that adding too much information would make the summary too > long. > But in case something important is missing, I am open to further suggestions. There's a SUMMARY (which is ok), but there's no DESCRIPTION, and they are two different texts. We do require a DESCRIPTION that contains a paragraph or two, with multiple sentences that properly introduce the project. You don't have to directly compare to u-boot, but you do need to highlight the best features and advantages of the component. Being terse or generic in DESCRIPTION is not a good thing, and no DESCRIPTION at all is even worse. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#204345): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/204345 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108370664/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
