On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:16:07PM +0100, Andrea Adami wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The following changes since commit 986de01251408605161e0f8343866a0e7ffe7910:
> >
> >  qmake2: remove (2012-03-21 13:50:44 +0100)
> >
> > are available in the git repository at:
> >  git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib jansa/kernel
> >  http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=jansa/kernel
> >
> > Martin Jansa (3):
> >  kernel.bbclass: import s/1/True/ changes from oe-core version
> >  kernel.bbclass: import QA warning fix for unpackaged files from
> >    oe-core
> >  kernel.bbclass: populate /etc/modules-load.d/ with module_autoload
> >    entries too
> >
> >  meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass |   64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> >  1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 1.7.8.5
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-devel mailing list
> > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> 
> Can we hope this copy of kernel.bbclass will be removed from meta-oe one day?
> Is it still here because the  machine_kernel_pr  ?

Yes it's still mostly because of machine_kernel_pr.

> I ask, because the differences between the two copies are not too many
> but are increasing with the time, i.e. do_compile_kernelmodules,
> do_uboot_mkimage, kernel_do_deploy.

That's why I was syncing some before my patches, feel free to merge rest
if you test it.

> IMHO it is very bad keeping two copies of a basic class like this one.

Yes it is, you can ask for machine_kernel_pr inclusion in that old oe-core 
thread too..

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com