On 11/07/2009 03:06 AM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
On Friday 06 November 2009 21:38:40 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
While trying to build xmltv I got this:
NOTE: The MD5Sums did not match. Wanted:
'495fd8c320f67a0c8e0b90ccb060f0ea' and Got:
'68d9a93d507bbf917e1f3ad294fd5727'
NOTE: Task fail
2009/11/7 Holger Hans Peter Freyther :
> On Friday 06 November 2009 21:38:40 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> While trying to build xmltv I got this:
>>
>> NOTE: The MD5Sums did not match. Wanted:
>> '495fd8c320f67a0c8e0b90ccb060f0ea' and Got:
>> '68d9a93d507bbf917e1f3ad294fd5727'
>> NOTE: Task failed:
On Saturday 07 November 2009 10:06:57 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> > Check the angstrom mirror or sources.oe.org and download that version
> > and then diff it.
>
> Hm. Did that.
> Apparently version control is not very strong for Twig.
> The diff for the changes file:
bump the PR of the package
2009/11/7 Holger Hans Peter Freyther :
> On Saturday 07 November 2009 10:06:57 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>
>> > Check the angstrom mirror or sources.oe.org and download that version
>> > and then diff it.
>>
>> Hm. Did that.
>> Apparently version control is not very strong for Twig.
>> The diff for
Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
...
>
> Reluctantly updated checksums.ini
>
> Frans
But of course there's no magic that will remove the old cached tarball
out of one's downloads directory when this sort of thing happens.
(Busybox has been known to do this, too)
What do folks think we should do about
On Saturday 07 November 2009 14:23:01 Mike Westerhof wrote:
> Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> ...
>
> > Reluctantly updated checksums.ini
> >
> > Frans
>
> But of course there's no magic that will remove the old cached tarball
> out of one's downloads directory when this sort of thing happens.
> (Bus
On 06-11-09 21:38, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
While trying to build xmltv I got this:
NOTE: The MD5Sums did not match. Wanted:
'495fd8c320f67a0c8e0b90ccb060f0ea' and Got:
'68d9a93d507bbf917e1f3ad294fd5727'
NOTE: Task failed: Checksum of
'http://xmltwig.com/xmltwig/XML-Twig-3.33.tar.gz' failed
Ho
On 07-11-09 14:23, Mike Westerhof wrote:
Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
...
Reluctantly updated checksums.ini
Frans
But of course there's no magic that will remove the old cached tarball
out of one's downloads directory when this sort of thing happens.
(Busybox has been known to do this, too)
Wh
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> On 07-11-09 14:23, Mike Westerhof wrote:
>>
>> Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Reluctantly updated checksums.ini
>>>
>>> Frans
>>
>> But of course there's no magic that will remove the old cached tarball
>> out of one's downloads
2009/11/7 Otavio Salvador :
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> On 07-11-09 14:23, Mike Westerhof wrote:
>>>
>>> Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>> ...
Reluctantly updated checksums.ini
Frans
>>>
>>> But of course there's no magic that will remove the o
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks
wrote:
>>> d) rename the tarball slighty and mirror in on a known good server (e.g.
>>> angstrom sourcemirror) and have OE use that.
>>
>> IMO (d) is the safest and the right thing to do; this avoids more core
>> to be written and avoids a
2009/11/7 Otavio Salvador :
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks
> wrote:
d) rename the tarball slighty and mirror in on a known good server (e.g.
angstrom sourcemirror) and have OE use that.
>>>
>>> IMO (d) is the safest and the right thing to do; this avoids
On 06-11-09 21:38, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
While trying to build xmltv I got this:
NOTE: The MD5Sums did not match. Wanted:
'495fd8c320f67a0c8e0b90ccb060f0ea' and Got:
'68d9a93d507bbf917e1f3ad294fd5727'
NOTE: Task failed: Checksum of
'http://xmltwig.com/xmltwig/XML-Twig-3.33.tar.gz' failed
Ho
Hello Koen,
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> I implemented option 'd':
>
> http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=7e8f2afa6fb064aaa3b477456c60f64b20caedeb
>
> And I have to repeat that the twig upstream are idiots for behaving like
> this. May the fleas of
Koen,
I usually ignore your pick of language, but I think using such a
language in a commit -- visible to all potential users or contributors
to OpenEmbedded -- is damaging the reputation of the project as a whole.
:M:
___
Openembedded-devel mailing
On 08-11-09 13:23, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
Koen,
I usually ignore your pick of language, but I think using such a
language in a commit -- visible to all potential users or contributors
to OpenEmbedded -- is damaging the reputation of the project as a whole.
Which part of the commit messa
Without making a comment on the commit message:
As stated before the 3.33 version is clearly mentioned as "latest
development version" on http://xmltwig.com/xmltwig/
The last stable version is 3.32
This project decided to provide snapshots (or whatever you want to
call it) of the new version. In t
On 11/08/2009 01:19 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
On 08-11-09 13:23, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
Koen,
I usually ignore your pick of language, but I think using such a
language in a commit -- visible to all potential users or contributors
to OpenEmbedded -- is damaging the reputation of the project as
On 08-11-09 15:08, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
Without making a comment on the commit message:
As stated before the 3.33 version is clearly mentioned as "latest
development version" on http://xmltwig.com/xmltwig/
The last stable version is 3.32
This project decided to provide snapshots (or whateve
2009/11/8 Koen Kooi :
> On 08-11-09 15:08, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>
>> Without making a comment on the commit message:
>>
>> As stated before the 3.33 version is clearly mentioned as "latest
>> development version" on http://xmltwig.com/xmltwig/
>> The last stable version is 3.32
>> This projec
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks
wrote:
> Without making a comment on the commit message:
>
> As stated before the 3.33 version is clearly mentioned as "latest
> development version" on http://xmltwig.com/xmltwig/
> The last stable version is 3.32
> This project decided
Hello Koen,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 3.33 is a version. A version is a point, not a distance. If it's a snapshot
> than you should call is twig-snapshot, twig-3.33rc1 or whatever.
> Replacing a versioned tarball weekly is *bad*, since you (as upstream
> maintainer) don'
On 08-11-09 15:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks
wrote:
Without making a comment on the commit message:
As stated before the 3.33 version is clearly mentioned as "latest
development version" on http://xmltwig.com/xmltwig/
The last stable ve
I'm with you on this one, Koen. Changing a versioned tarball is just
dumb - it goes against common sense and long standing convention in
release engineering.
As for choosing the 3.32 version, who's to say they won't add a bugfix
and update that tarball too?
-Graham
__
Graham Gower wrote:
> I'm with you on this one, Koen. Changing a versioned tarball is just
> dumb - it goes against common sense and long standing convention in
> release engineering.
>
> As for choosing the 3.32 version, who's to say they won't add a bugfix
> and update that tarball too?
Beacuse
25 matches
Mail list logo
