Dear Peter,

In message [ref] you wrote:

 Wolfgang> Let's make this "uImage.old" (or "uImage.legacy" similar) and
 Wolfgang> "uImage", then.

No, that would break stuff for the existing users. The existing format
make/file names shouldn't change.

Well, with this argument you can block all progress and freeze all
development to some ancient state.

When the arch/ppc => arch/powerpc conversionm was done, we had similar
issues: the new "powerpc" uImages would not work as the old "ppc"
uImages dis, because you also needed the device tree blob, or you had
to use the cuImage files. Note that then the decision was made to
support the _new_ version as the default, using the default name,
which is IMO the Right Thing to do.

The FIT images could be called fitimage or uImage.new or something.

I disagree. We want to make this the new default, so let's use the
default name for this, and continue to support he legacy image format
using another name.

Also, your approach does not scale. Assume we come up with an even
more advanced image format in the future - how should we name it then?
"uImage.newer" ? "uImage.verynew" ? "uImage.new2" ?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
The world is coming to an end -- save your buffers!