From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [78.47.116.19] (helo=sirius.lasnet.de) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCBWB-00068R-Bx for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:21:43 +0100 Received: from c120.apm.etc.tu-bs.de ([134.169.174.120] helo=excalibur.local) by sirius.lasnet.de with esmtpsa (Cipher TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1LCBRu-00077z-UL by authid with cram_md5; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:17:21 +0100 Received: from stefan by excalibur.local with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCBRn-0003nF-Ur; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:17:11 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:17:11 +0100 From: Stefan Schmidt To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org Message-ID: <20081215111711.GC11095@excalibur.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt http://www.mutt.org/ X-KeyID: 0xDDF51665 X-Website: http://www.datenfreihafen.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on sirius.lasnet.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Subject: How to handle deps on different connman versions? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:21:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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