Hei hei, Am Freitag, 23. August 2019, 10:33:42 CEST schrieb Roland Hieber: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 05:38:19PM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:42:40PM +0200, Roland Hieber wrote: > > > + > > > + # get list of dirs for which no package exists > > > + comm --nocheck-order -13 ${pkgslistfile} ${patchdirfile} | while read > > > dir; do + ptxd_in_path PTXDIST_PATH_PATCHES ${dir} > > > + ptxd_print_path ${ptxd_reply} > > > + done | while read line; do > > > + # annotate packages that are built specially or their version > > > + # depends on enabling kconfig entries > > > + case i in > > > + *alsa-lib*|*at91bootstrap*|*barebox*) > > > > I think we can 'fix' the alsa-lib false positives. > > And maybe we should just remove the at91bootstrap patches, they are really > > old anyways. > > But why barebox? There should be no old patches, right? > > Ah, yes. I was thinking at91bootstrap can be disabled, so the version > number is empty, and the same can be said for barebox too. But the only > location where Barebox patches occur is at the BSP level, and I guess > it doesn't happen that someone switches from barebox to at91bootstrap > with patches lying around locally.
FWIW, we are still using different versions of at91bootstrap in different BSPs. The legacy version (at91bootstrap) has patches in the directory 'patches/Bootstrap-v1.16' and the current version (at91bootstrap2) has them in 'patches/at91bootstrap-3.8.13'. If one or the other package needs fixes, let me know. Greets Alex _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de