I don't normally answer direct questions without the mailing list in the CC. This one was generic enough to send to the list by removing the names.
>Good morning Jason, Gerald,
> In August I (& colleagues) ordered a couple of BeagleBoards Rev. B from D/K – now I persuaded some friends to purchase some extra boards and read a thread about
>BB rev. C vs. rev. B … In order to stream-line our work, we would like to know the impact on the software compilation process between Rev. C and Rev. B. ?
>
> 1. What is the impact on the software installation process between Rev. C vs. Rev. B ?
I expect that we'll provide an updated bootloader (u-boot) that will make it easier to avoid typing in commands over the serial port to boot a kernel from the SD card, since the SD card will be automatically scanned for a boot.scr file. You can simply update the u-boot on your flash to get this functionality--it isn't related to any change in the hardware, just the testing process.
> 2. Do you advise to wait for Rev. C BB’s ?
No, not unless you want to wait until March or have an absolute requirement for a second USB port. You can enter the software design contest for a chance to get one of the prototypes.
> 3. Should the current users (owners) of a Rev. B board also migrate to Rev. C in order to keep toolchain compilation process aligned ?
No, there is full software compatibility for all on-board components. USB host will be added and should gracefully not-work on Rev B boards. Changes to the pin-mux for the expansion header can be put in with #ifdef, but are not even currently in the mainline.
> 4. What is the status nowadays of the Flyswatter – OpenOCD JTAG debugger … have the sw. issues been solved ? Is it already stable enough for daily use ?
You can follow the status on the openocd mailing list where there has been some on-going discussion: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/. It is not ready for daily use, as far as I can see. It does appear to be ready for experimental use.