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
