Andy Green wrote:
| It guarantees just nothing. You could throw non compliant code in a srpm
| as much as you could commit it in the source dir of any bitbake package.
Tilman I read this part by holding my laptop up to a mirror to fool my
head explosion protection, some blood came out of one ear, but otherwise
I am OK. After that I lay down for a bit and didn't dare read the rest.
Source packages typically contain an upstream tarball, a patchset and
the spec file used to control the build. In fact everything to make the
binary except the build tools like compiler.
How would this be different from bitbake?
Maybe i'm missing something here.
Yes you can mess it up,
but typically you don't mess it up and the source package is everything
you needed to regenerate the binary, created at the time the binary was
created. To the point you can delete your build tree of it and the SRPM
is your "compressed backup". It's as good as an insurance you can get
against license violation and capability to "give what you used".
How should the information "I used _this_ CVS revision (or whatever
tool) in my source tree. Look there is everything i used." be less valuable?
Regards
Tilman
