2011/4/25 Tom Rini <[email protected]> > On 04/25/2011 01:14 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > > 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. > > For bluez4 we could probably drop out 4.31, 4.41 (4.43 seems to > introduce some startup changes that might require folks to opt-in) and > then all of the post ones until 4.91, since shr and angstrom would both > depend on that. I'd be happy to do that as a follow-up. > > > 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 > > Well, maybe the better answer is a re-worked series to drop out a number > of older versions, and then it won't be bad to have the patch in a the > bb files.. Need to think about this. >
I appreciate it if you would. To me the analysis of what is needed seems sound. > > > 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 > > Well, this is in part something the oe-core/meta-oe/etc policy will help > with since it does have a planned phasing out / removal of the old > version, so we would have less in the way of "add the latest .z release > and .z-1 through .z-5 just stick around). > Actually the last remark was mostly triggered by the observation that distro's have two ways to pin a recipe (and actually use both of them). Having only one mechanism might reduce the chance of causing confusion and/or mistakes Frans _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
