From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f226.google.com ([209.85.220.226]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NgJ7R-000678-VQ for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:37:17 +0100 Received: by fxm26 with SMTP id 26so3428782fxm.13 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:34:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=x4y0Kdnw91FaEj6mhnvsBySsCMGmGtTbv19O0YU4Bvg=; b=Pc1TqDsmV3jnNszHDKnBfdghAzq6Gwpyt7M4Mzv6ThiPU/wTmJjsM9yNuvyNlyu+HT UbZbV/+AgpdEWEursFrsRIOk8Z5lP4BCWtJeFCQLeIjfKfKFN7xPlbTpUEFTA1+YYkLB joOOxHWVrobl8bqkrrUx07LWG17rStC6YvVXI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Sp9waUxAEq7syRa3LyV+8/MCaAMcGg4neH5L+MUCRL5j2LgvFQ08mDOYRbln0vmC3r SLj5Dyynf278dZMZ+LcfhLgDO7erCkbTG9VnjWxFrWd7s22AZPbOir8F65mHa4q7/Hgt Ple1UlwpaeHEViPYgMd/loaFCp22VddOt5lvQ= Received: by 10.223.145.150 with SMTP id d22mr3240870fav.23.1266071677283; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:34:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from s42.loc ([84.119.103.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 18sm7244274fks.4.2010.02.13.06.34.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:34:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from cow by s42.loc with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NgJ7d-0007Tx-K1; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:37:25 +0100 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:37:25 +0100 From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20100213143725.GP10632@mx.loc> References: <1265832780-19939-3-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1265832780-19939-4-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1265832780-19939-5-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1265832780-19939-6-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1265832780-19939-7-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1265832780-19939-8-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1265832780-19939-9-git-send-email-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <1265892781.3777.1050.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> <20100213125146.GJ10632@mx.loc> <1266067169.5437.18.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1266067169.5437.18.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.220.226 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rep.dot.nop@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] xz: add xz package 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: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:37:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 01:19:29PM +0000, Phil Blundell wrote: >On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 13:51 +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> It would indeed. Can i somehow say >> file1: SRC="http:://one.ext/one.tar.xz" >> SRC[md5sum]=md5 >> SRC[sha256sum]=sha256 >> or, perhaps it's the basename if there was no ;name= >> SRC[one.tar.xz.md5sum]=md5 >> SRC[one.tar.xz.sha256sum]=sha256 >> file2: SRC="git://two" >> inc: FOO_SRC ?= SRC >> SRC_URI += FOO_SRC > >I don't think this needs to be as complicated as you are making it. You >should be able to simply move your original SRC_URI verbatim to the .inc >file, i.e.: > >SRC_URI = "http://tukaani.org/xz/xz-${PV}.tar.bz2;name=xz" > >and then, in the individual .bb files for each version, write: > >SRC_URI[xz.md5sum] = ... > >There's no requirement for the two things to be in the same file. If >you need to add other things like patches to the SRC_URI for a specific >version, you can just write: > >SRC_URI += "file://..." > >in the .bb file in question. But that would clash with _git, wouldn't it, unless, and only if this exact sequence would be used: .inc:=S ?= ${WORKDIR}/xz-${PV} .inc:=SRC_URI=http 0815.bb:PV=0814+0815foo 0815.bb:require .inc 0815.bb:SRC_URI+=patch1 git.bb:S=${WORKDIR}/git git.bb:require .inc git.bb:SRC_URI=git which we can obey to in this case, but it somehow feels brittle altough it should work out fine in practise, i think. > >> Revised patch is attached, but: >> it works for the 4.999beta9 version (literally, since that's how >> upstream calls the tarball; Is this a problem with the version-naming >> like Koon indicates?) > >It rather depends on what upstream are going to do next. If "4.999" is >the number that they are using for pre-releases leading up to 5.0, and >everything in the 4.999 series is going to be a beta (i.e. they do >4.999.8beta, 4.999.9beta, 4.999.10beta, 5.0) then it is probably fine as >it stands. But, if there is any risk that "4.999.9beta" might be >followed at some point by a version called just "4.999.9", or even >"4.999", then that would be a problem because the latter version will >sort lower than the former. ACK, exactly. I follow Koon on this. > >> since: $ ls -a ../sources/git/ctrl.tukaani.org.xz.git/ >> . .. 1 .git >> >> "1" ?! > >That is rather weird. I can't see any obvious cause for that from a >quick inspection of the files you attached. Just try it out, that package shouldn't interfere with any existing recipe. To my untrained eyes it sounds like a glitch somewhere in infrastructure and not in those recipes, but YMV alot from mine in this respect :) Insights? TIA && cheers, Bernhard