How to handle deps on different connman versions?

How to handle deps on different connman versions?

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

I just pushed a connman-0.2 recipe into the tree. That makes three of it, as we
also have git and 0.1.

I'm thinking about how to handle this lately. At the moment 0.1 and 0.2 have
both default to -1. The git recipe has a fixed SCREV that points to a rev which
matches the API used by om-settings. Since then the API changed a lot and at
least this will break when we update the SRREV or go with the releases. Do we
have others sonsumers of the connman API in OE yet?

John, can you give us some infos from the OM perspective here? Does something
like this not matter as you build from your own stable branch? Is om-settings
still relevant?

From my way to write you see that I would prefer to remove the default -1 from
the releases based recipes. In the end the work I'm doing right now will be used
as replacement for the wifi part in om-settinngs anyway when moving to the
framework. I juts aks beacuse the transition may cause trouble.

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: How to handle deps on different connman versions?

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 12:21, John Lee wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:17:11PM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> > 
> > I just pushed a connman-0.2 recipe into the tree. That makes three of it, as we
> > also have git and 0.1.
> > 
> > I'm thinking about how to handle this lately. At the moment 0.1 and 0.2 have
> > both default to -1. The git recipe has a fixed SCREV that points to a rev which
> > matches the API used by om-settings. Since then the API changed a lot and at
> > least this will break when we update the SRREV or go with the releases. Do we
> > have others sonsumers of the connman API in OE yet?
> > 
> > John, can you give us some infos from the OM perspective here? Does something
> > like this not matter as you build from your own stable branch? Is om-settings
> > still relevant?
> 
> there's no wifi function in om-settings now, therefore there should
> not be any dependency.

Thanks for the confirmation. That means I can upgrade it in OE.dev now without
risk of breaking stuff.

regards
Stefan Schmidt