Small patch for two scripts.

[GoogleCodeExporter]

One script 'check_for_upgrade' has an error performing a test between two 
strings (each of which has a space in it). This puts quotes around the strings 
and puts a note in the top of the script explaining this.

Second script, 'build_firmware', has two small "issues" (not even bugs). This 
is the note I put in the patch:
+# 20110224-1507-MCT - Two simple mods.
+# + Put the name of the build into an external file so that
+#   it's easier to customize.
+# + Modified a var to correct the spelling. :)
+#   Changed FIRMARE_BASE_NAME to FIRMWARE_BASE_NAME

Original issue reported on code.google.com by michael....@gmail.com on 24 Feb 2011 at 11:14

Attachments:

• mypatch-for-firmware-mod-kit

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for your contribution ;). This is what I hoped to see from the start. I 
will apply them ASAP.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 24 Feb 2011 at 11:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ok, I admit to being a fiddler. I couldn't leave well enough alone.

I modified it to allow for a "rebuild number" that automatically increments.

This is both sets of patches against the distribution version.

Original comment by michael....@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 12:51

Attachments:

• mypatch-for-firmware-mod-kit-2

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I should say, there's a couple of shell'isms used which may be less than 
perfectly portable but I think they're solid.

Original comment by michael....@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 12:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Booboo'd on doing the md5sums.

Single line fix.

Original comment by michael....@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 1:02

Attachments:

• mypatch-for-firmware-mod-kit-3

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks again, I'll try to go ahead and commit these during today's work session.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 1:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It occurred to me, why not just give you commit access.. That is easier for 
everyone. So, I've done so. Just check back out the project using the 
credentials Google supplies and you can commit whatever changes you like. You 
are clearly a trustworthy and competent developer.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 1:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

And as the firmware mod kit version changes, perhaps we can host that 
elsewhere, or I can be responsible for updating it on my server. If it can be 
publicly exposed on Google Code, then we should use that route.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 2:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ok, changes checked in.
I did it in two separate actions to allow them to be separated if needed.

Original comment by michael....@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 2:59

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Re: #7, I don't think I understand. Isn't this (GoogleCode) a good place for it?

Original comment by michael....@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 3:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes, it is - and exactly what I was saying. I just made the change so that it 
checks the browsed Google code site, using the 'raw file' link. As long as this 
doesn't change, no more of me having to put the TXT file on my web server (and 
messing it up half the time ;p).

Done as of r174. r173 was bad because I used the non-raw URL, which would have 
required more parsing.

Thanks again for your contributions ;). If I can do anything, let me know. I am 
normally busy with my business at Bitsum Technologies, but if you need elevated 
rights or credits (please feel free to add credits for yourself) anywhere, just 
let me know.

Thanks ;)

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 3:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

One quick question, do you remember if there's any conflicts between the 
shared.inc file and the ipkg_* scripts? (I know that they don't use the 
shared.inc file but I want them to.) (I'll also open a separate ticket for it 
when I get ready to do it.)

Original comment by michael....@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 3:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

No conflicts I know of. I do not remember the rationale for not including it in 
those scripts. It may have been a simple lack of necessity at the time.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 25 Feb 2011 at 3:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by michael....@gmail.com on 28 Feb 2011 at 1:16

• Added labels: Usability