From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ew0-f225.google.com ([209.85.219.225]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nu0lp-0000mi-CT for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:51:38 +0100 Received: by ewy25 with SMTP id 25so1804915ewy.27 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:48:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Yzs1Nqsut2wh4MOEEYm5AYBz3efOCTCUmavDue+078s=; b=HBRJnH4zcs/iA+PLpGCFw1P5l4hoSW5mbUrCdHTCHpJYPJQf+AY1hxpApSjVZPEk7G mFM/s9KENN2hyUCiXzgT/iQK/WVffceFISHbWCyqqAaMxSvtkJgnjN56IDiuYFpFptdz Wpwd2RpDG6nkXjAMsMHPW13AhaiqKtA4yN594= 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=J3M+QVuPQvv9fPDTkgFDT8Mf2k8008YZvcgYb72VdFBeG4SiE+pTateQcVFC3HQLh5 j8dXD2pxso/ZqW8sHMDrvwpjpDt8mTRgiITRutn1xYEfluxLmATCFTtFGFva1oaKcE9y 3aBCfrn6Emj0eXCbqhVKCQ8m5OdwhoIspPy14= Received: by 10.102.13.15 with SMTP id 15mr3891157mum.55.1269337704643; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (161-24.13.24.78.awnet.cz [78.24.13.161]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j9sm3252955mue.47.2010.03.23.02.48.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:47:57 +0100 From: Martin Jansa To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20100323094757.GE21210@jama> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.219.225 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: martin.jansa@gmail.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: BBVERSIONS 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:51:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:26:53PM -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > Greetings all, > > Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? I've been wondering if this is really > worthwhile, but I think it is. I think there is value in keeping old > versions around, but this allows us to avoid cluttering up the repository as > much, and makes it so that one change to a recipe can affect all the > versions in that range by default, or all versions, rather than just the one > version you tested. Of course, ideally you'd test all versions, but that's > the case today too, its just that now our recipes get bitrotted instead. > Personally, I'd rather see the old version content continue to be brought > forward by default, and if it fails to build with that, we fix it, but it's > easier to fix a build than to unclutter the repository. > > I'm hoping to get some input on this :) For me it seems easier to read shared stuff in .inc and then multiple files with just include on .inc and checksums. Sometimes with additional patch or some fix only for particular version, instead of one a bit longer file with OVERRIDES. But maybe it's just lack of imagination on my side. Also as I stated in some other thread, I think it's usefull to have one version of each major version which was in OE (probably latest from each range you have in nano.bb example), because to test 5 version at least if patches apply cleanly and it builds ok, is much faster than 42 version from example. Regards, -- uin:136542059 jid:Martin.Jansa@gmail.com Jansa Martin sip:jamasip@voip.wengo.fr JaMa