2011/4/25 Tom Rini <[email protected]> > Hey all, > > In digging at some other bluez problems, I found that at least > 4.91 no longer needs the sbc-thumb patch. But without moving it to the > N versions of bluez4 we have or starting a new inc file for later bluez4 > versions, there wasn't a clean way to exclude the patch. Until now. > Borrowing the minrev/maxrev logic I added minver/maxver patch params > and tested them lightly (the patch is applied on 4.89 and not on > 4.91). I'm cc'ing Koen here because patch #3 adds 4.91 and make it > default for Angstrom, but all I've done myself is build testing. > It should be safe, based on upstream changelog tho. > > First question should probably be: do we need 9 versions of bluez4? This is not too much in line with the version policy the TSC once stipulated and seems also different from the road oe-core and meta-oe are taking.
Also personally I'm not too keen on minrev/maxrev. It only makes things again a little bit more complicated. My preference would be to remove the patch from the .inc file and move to the individual bb files My 2 cents. Frans PS: two more cents: it seems somewhat odd that some distro's have a DP = 1 for more than one version of a recipe. While technically not wrong this looks a little bit odd. Also we seem to have two mechanisms to select a version for a distro. One is the DP_distro mechanism the other one is the PREFERRED_VERSION_recipe in the conf file It seems to me one should be sufficient _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
