[PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Wang Xin]

Upgrade gdk-pixbuf from 2.34.0 to 2.35.3.

Signed-off-by: Wang Xin <wangxin2015.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 .../gdk-pixbuf/{gdk-pixbuf_2.34.0.bb => gdk-pixbuf_2.35.3.bb}         | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-gnome/gdk-pixbuf/{gdk-pixbuf_2.34.0.bb => gdk-pixbuf_2.35.3.bb} (96%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-gnome/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf_2.34.0.bb b/meta/recipes-gnome/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf_2.35.3.bb
similarity index 96%
rename from meta/recipes-gnome/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf_2.34.0.bb
rename to meta/recipes-gnome/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf_2.35.3.bb
index c24ec12..5e1fdae 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-gnome/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf_2.34.0.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-gnome/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf_2.35.3.bb
@@ -19,8 +19,8 @@ SRC_URI = "${GNOME_MIRROR}/${BPN}/${MAJ_VER}/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.xz \
            file://fatal-loader.patch \
            "
 
-SRC_URI[md5sum] = "63cb19f92cf7709ccf44bbb6fe1ff70c"
-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "d55e5b383ee219bd0e23bf6ed4427d56a7db5379729a6e3e0a0e0eba9a8d8879"
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "e9dc096280aaa1a7c4252af12df81476"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "ab4cdba365426685db049eca35e35147fe350b927cc68e469d54799c64d0cb23"
 
 inherit autotools pkgconfig gettext pixbufcache ptest-gnome upstream-version-is-even gobject-introspection
 
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 223 bytes --]

On 18 August 2016 at 06:48, Wang Xin <wangxin2015.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
wrote:

> Upgrade gdk-pixbuf from 2.34.0 to 2.35.3.
>

2.35.x is a development release, so stick with 2.34.x until 2.36.0 is
available.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 639 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 627 bytes --]


> On Aug 18, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18 August 2016 at 06:48, Wang Xin <wangxin2015.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com <mailto:wangxin2015.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>> wrote:
> Upgrade gdk-pixbuf from 2.34.0 to 2.35.3.
> 
> 2.35.x is a development release, so stick with 2.34.x until 2.36.0 is available.

perhaps recipe updater script should account for such presets ?

> 
> Ross
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1748 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 353 bytes --]

On 18 August 2016 at 18:58, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

> perhaps recipe updater script should account for such presets ?
>

It does:  http://recipes.yoctoproject.org/rrs/recipedetail/451/ says
up-to-date as we have 2.34.0 despite there being 2.35.3.

These upgrades have been done without reference to the tooling we've got.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 905 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Wang, Xin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]

There is no 2.36.x, so stick with 2.34.x.

From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 1:58 AM
To: Burton, Ross
Cc: Wang, Xin/王 鑫; OE-core
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3


On Aug 18, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com<mailto:ross.burton@intel.com>> wrote:


On 18 August 2016 at 06:48, Wang Xin <wangxin2015.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com<mailto:wangxin2015.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>> wrote:
Upgrade gdk-pixbuf from 2.34.0 to 2.35.3.

2.35.x is a development release, so stick with 2.34.x until 2.36.0 is available.

perhaps recipe updater script should account for such presets ?



Ross
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org<mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core




[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4648 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Alexander Kanavin]

On 08/18/2016 09:11 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> On 18 August 2016 at 18:58, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com
> <mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     perhaps recipe updater script should account for such presets ?
>
>
> It does:  http://recipes.yoctoproject.org/rrs/recipedetail/451/ says
> up-to-date as we have 2.34.0 despite there being 2.35.3.
>
> These upgrades have been done without reference to the tooling we've got.

Also the recipe itself inherits upstream-version-is-even class - that 
means odd versions are development snapshots and should be ignored.

Alex

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1026 bytes --]


> On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:41 AM, Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> On 08/18/2016 09:11 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> 
>> On 18 August 2016 at 18:58, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com
>> <mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>    perhaps recipe updater script should account for such presets ?
>> 
>> 
>> It does:  http://recipes.yoctoproject.org/rrs/recipedetail/451/ says
>> up-to-date as we have 2.34.0 despite there being 2.35.3.
>> 
>> These upgrades have been done without reference to the tooling we've got.
> 
> Also the recipe itself inherits upstream-version-is-even class - that means odd versions are development snapshots and should be ignored.

good point, will this class give me some sort of parsing error, if I try to update to odd version ?

> 
> Alex
> 
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --]

On 19 August 2016 at 17:52, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

> good point, will this class give me some sort of parsing error, if I try
> to update to odd version ?
>

No it simply sets the variables so that the recipe reporting service won't
propose an upgrade to a development release.

There may be a good reason for the upgrade to a development release (for
example if you're developing a system and are tracking an upstream
development series), so aborting the build would be overkill.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1013 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 654 bytes --]

On Aug 22, 2016 8:20 AM, "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 August 2016 at 17:52, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> good point, will this class give me some sort of parsing error, if I try
to update to odd version ?
>
>
> No it simply sets the variables so that the recipe reporting service
won't propose an upgrade to a development release.
>
> There may be a good reason for the upgrade to a development release (for
example if you're developing a system and are tracking an upstream
development series), so aborting the build would be overkill.

A parsing note or warning would not hurt imo
>
> Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 908 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gdk-pixbuf: 2.34.0 -> 2.35.3

[Alexander Kanavin]

On 08/19/2016 07:52 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>

>>> It does:  http://recipes.yoctoproject.org/rrs/recipedetail/451/ says
>>> up-to-date as we have 2.34.0 despite there being 2.35.3.
>>>
>>> These upgrades have been done without reference to the tooling we've got.
>>
>> Also the recipe itself inherits upstream-version-is-even class - that means odd versions are development snapshots and should be ignored.
>
> good point, will this class give me some sort of parsing error, if I try to update to odd version ?

Not at the moment, but if you can suggest how this could be done, I'll 
add it (perhaps as a warning though).

Alex