On 15/11/11 13:38, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 11:03 -0800, Saul Wold wrote: >> On 11/08/2011 06:18 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 16:10 -0800, Joshua Lock wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Here's a series of patches I developed whilst trying to play around with >>>> some >>>> Clutter based software. >>>> >>>> The interesting pieces may be: >>>> Clutter 1.8 series recipes - do we want/need to keep clutter 1.6 around? >>>> Are we OK with continuing to namespace the clutter recipes by clutter >>>> version? >>> >>> Yes, I think this makes sense. >> >> Why do we want to continue the clutter the namespace with version >> numbers? Was this not for a past issue with mis-matched API/ABI? >> >> If that problem is solved, then next remove that version info. > > Clutter produces libraries with a very specific namespace so you can > parallel install clutter 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8. Applications compile against > a given version of the library. > > Having the major lib version as part of the package name therefore makes > sense. There aren't a lot of projects that do this but this one does and > it continues to make sense to namespace it accordingly.
With this knowledge "in hand" I've just re-read the 1.8 release notes[1] and, for better or for worse, this is no longer the case: " * This version is API and ABI compatible with the current stable release of Clutter. * Installing the contents of this release will overwrite the files from the installation of the current release of Clutter. " For point 1 I'd added a patch to PROVIDES = "clutter-1.6" but I'm not sure what makes sense in the context of point 2. Cheers, Joshua 1. http://www.clutter-project.org/blogs/archive/2011-09/clutter-1.8.0-stable-release -- Joshua Lock Yocto Project "Johannes factotum" Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core