Hi Aaron, Quoting Aaron Rainbolt (2025-06-13 15:51:50) > > thank you for your work! I see that the mails, the issue and the bug report > > you opened did not get much of a reply and I agree that that's not ideal. > > On the other hand, you also did not send a patch. I realize that you linked > > instructions you created to implement what you propose but you actually > > didn't implement it, no? So maybe (and i can only guess) your bugs and > > issues did not result in much of a reply because even though you showed a > > proof-of-concept, it still requires somebody to actually do the work. And > > if that's the case, your issues are just asking others to carry out that > > work. I realize that this is frustrating for you but the maintainers are > > volunteers just as you, so maybe they have not yet found time to look into > > your instructions, implement and test your work? > I don't mean this in a mean way, but I wish you had spent the time to read > the initial email all the way through or read through any of the first three > links before suggesting this. I said no fewer than four times that I *want* > to send a patch quite badly, and was waiting for there to be any kind of > discussion, ACK, NACK, or sharing of concerns from the maintainer or anyone > else with authority in the Raspberry Pi area of things. It's generally a > universal rule in open-source that before implementing a large change in an > open-source project, you discuss it with maintainers first, otherwise you end > up with code that can't be used. I was unable to get that discussion started > on my first attempt, thus why I emailed here. you are right. I apologize, I should've paid more attention when reading your messages. I think you picked the correct approach and I would like to retract the part from my last mail where I implied that you would not be willing to do the work. I'm sorry for the noise. > > I suppose (but understand if you are not motivated enough to do this after > > being "ignored" like this) that you would get more of a reply if you > > actually can show a patch which implements your work on top of the Debian > > packaging. > I'm more than motivated enough, and really if the first patch had to be > discarded for whatever reasons and completely reworked, I'd be OK with that > too. What I don't want is to send a patch and have it go as ignored as my > attempts at reaching out to the maintainer, so if I'm going to implement it, > I want to make sure there's a way forward to actually get it reviewed and > merged (assuming of course the thing I'm trying to accomplish isn't > fundamentally unacceptable to the reviewer(s)). I think your approach is sound. Thank you for offering to contribute and thank you for sticking around instead of giving up. > > Incidentally, I just enabled EFI booting for the MNT Reform images I > > maintain using systemd-boot. The MNT Reform also uses u-boot by default but > > the RK3588 supports EDK2 and we are currently performing experiments with > > it. Maybe we switch away from u-boot to some efi-based solution in the > > future. > That's neat! I like U-Boot in particular personally, but EDK2 sounds useful > too. I haven't experimented with EDK2 since my workplace isn't interested in > it, they want U-Boot to be used. (It also happens to be already used by > Fedora and I *think* Ubuntu, so it's been tested and verified to work for > this sort of thing.) Thank you for your work and sorry again for my accusation in my earlier mail. cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature