From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [64.71.152.235] (helo=lirone.symas.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MnZ3x-0005K9-4R for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:31:24 +0200 Received: from m440536d0.tmodns.net ([208.54.5.68] helo=[192.168.2.1]) by lirone.symas.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MnZ3R-0002G9-Eh for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:30:50 -0700 Message-ID: <4AAFA50B.7000007@symas.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:30:35 -0700 From: Howard Chu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; rv:1.9.1b5pre) Gecko/20090909 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre Firefox/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.71.152.235 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: hyc@symas.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: python-wpactrl 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, 15 Sep 2009 14:31:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit openembedded-devel-request@lists.openembedded.org wrote: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:13:22 +0100 > From: Phil Blundell > On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 18:59 -0700, Howard Chu wrote: >> Here's a recipe file for the python-wpactrl module, which connects to >> wpa_supplicant's control interface. It works for me... > > Thanks for the patch. > > Your bb file is named "python-wpactrl_1.0", which would suggest that > this is for version 1.0 of the package. But the SRC_URI seems to point > to some random-looking svn revision. Can you clarify what the > versioning situation is with that? I'll use the svn revision number. I used 1.0 because that's the version number present in the various files of the repository. It may take a while before I get to reposting this, have a lot of other things on my plate. > The patch looks fine to me otherwise. Thanks for the review. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/