On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 11:53 +0100, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> thanks for your answer.
>
> > Imagine you set your recipe to some invalid SRCREV. It was possible that
> > the fetcher would notice it was missing and attempt to fetch it from
> > upstream (so far so good), then silently co
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 12:50 +0100, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> sorry to jump in so late, but I just realized that this "small" change
> has some impact also on our ELDK recipies, so I would really like to
> understand where the change comes from and why we couple a persistent
> specific
Hi Richard,
sorry to jump in so late, but I just realized that this "small" change
has some impact also on our ELDK recipies, so I would really like to
understand where the change comes from and why we couple a persistent
specification (commit ID) with a transient specification (branch name).
With
Hi Richard,
> -Original Message-
> From: openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Purdie
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:43 PM
>
> On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 06:41 +, zhenhua@freescale.com
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 06:41 +, zhenhua@freescale.com wrote:
> Previously the branch name doesn't need to be defined when a
> non-master branch commit is referred in recipe, this has been changed
> in latest bitbake.
>
> Is this an intentional change? May I know the reason of the change if
Previously the branch name doesn't need to be defined when a non-master branch
commit is referred in recipe, this has been changed in latest bitbake.
Is this an intentional change? May I know the reason of the change if it is
intentional?
Best Regards,
Zhenhua
___
