[meta-xfce] thunar-volman: Add initial recipe with version 0.6.0

[meta-xfce] thunar-volman: Add initial recipe with version 0.6.0

[Andreas Müller]

* build & partially run tested on overo

Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmx.de>
---
 .../thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb           |   12 ++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb

diff --git a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ad11d84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+DESCRIPTION = "Automatic management of removable drives and media for thunar"
+SECTION = "x11"
+LICENSE = "GPLv2"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f"
+DEPENDS = "exo gtk+ libxfce4ui libxfce4util xfconf libnotify"
+
+PR = "r0"
+
+inherit xfce
+
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "2f166662dd100d5195da238af417f305"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "b1afd2b3b285cfcf07c11caa3d37fa5ff1fc06f7dc68fcca07f9a0d70daa694f"
-- 
1.7.4.4

Re: [meta-xfce] thunar-volman: Add initial recipe with version 0.6.0

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 31-08-11 01:06, Andreas Müller schreef:
> * build & partially run tested on overo
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmx.de> --- .../thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb           |   12 ++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb
> 
> diff --git a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad11d84 --- /dev/null +++ b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +DESCRIPTION =
> "Automatic management of removable drives and media for thunar" +SECTION = "x11" +LICENSE = "GPLv2" +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f" +DEPENDS = "exo gtk+ libxfce4ui libxfce4util xfconf libnotify" + +PR = "r0"

please remove PR in new recipes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFOXd93MkyGM64RGpERAkUGAJ46wom0rFseqaFM70VY/N+2k2oN/ACfUX8U
Y5VegGQ0zBN2aQCwuik9LeQ=
=70Pp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

`PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add? (was: thunar-volman: Add initial recipe with version 0.6.0)

[Paul Menzel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1516 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, den 31.08.2011, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
> Op 31-08-11 01:06, Andreas Müller schreef:
> > * build & partially run tested on overo
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmx.de> --- .../thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb           |   12 ++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad11d84 --- /dev/null +++ b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +DESCRIPTION =
> > "Automatic management of removable drives and media for thunar" +SECTION = "x11" +LICENSE = "GPLv2" +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f" +DEPENDS = "exo gtk+ libxfce4ui libxfce4util xfconf libnotify" + +PR = "r0"

(Koen, your messages are still not displayed correctly. The line breaks
are missing. Could you check your setup? Your messages are the only ones
displaying that problem [1].)

> please remove PR in new recipes

Actually I would favor to leave them in. The manual also advises to do
this. To change that policy, I would favor a survey/poll so that not
every developers says something different as s/he sees best fit.


Thanks,

Paul


[1] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2011-August/034698.html

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 31-08-11 12:06, Paul Menzel schreef:
> Am Mittwoch, den 31.08.2011, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
>> Op 31-08-11 01:06, Andreas Müller schreef:
>>> * build & partially run tested on overo
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmx.de> --- .../thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb           |   12 ++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad11d84 --- /dev/null +++ b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +DESCRIPTION = 
>>> "Automatic management of removable drives and media for thunar" +SECTION = "x11" +LICENSE = "GPLv2" +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f" +DEPENDS = "exo gtk+ libxfce4ui libxfce4util xfconf libnotify" + +PR = "r0"
> 
> (Koen, your messages are still not displayed correctly. The line breaks are missing. Could you check your setup? Your messages are the only ones displaying that problem [1].)

I blame thunderbird auto updates, it suddenly started doing this and I couldn't figure out when to change it back. And honestly, I don't care.

> 
>> please remove PR in new recipes
> 
> Actually I would favor to leave them in.

Well I don't, and atm I decide if it goes in or not.

> The manual also advises to do this.

The manual says a lot of things and was written for .dev, not OE-core or meta-oe.

> To change that policy, I would favor a survey/poll so that not every developers says something different as s/he sees best fit.

Be sure to include every other variable with a default in that poll in order to be consistent.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD4DBQFOXguVMkyGM64RGpERAkKZAJjDc20vYI5rFNfg6RU3Fc27kh64AJ9Im+Oo
CkuOFUfDcIWraxzeWj3oFw==
=n8yR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/8/31 Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Op 31-08-11 12:06, Paul Menzel schreef:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 31.08.2011, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
> >> Op 31-08-11 01:06, Andreas Müller schreef:
>
> [...]

>
>
> >
> >> please remove PR in new recipes
> >
> > Actually I would favor to leave them in.
>
> Well I don't, and atm I decide if it goes in or not.
>

Ah. God is back. (btw who decided you are the decision maker for these
things?).

Somehow  I had the impression that the number of active contributors in OE
was diminishing; Guess I now understand why.
Statements like this are probably not the best way to run a community
project and/or keep people motivated.


> > The manual also advises to do this.
>
> The manual says a lot of things and was written for .dev, not OE-core or
> meta-oe.
>

Then make sure that people know how do do things (e.g. by updating the
manual for OE_core and/or meta-oe)

>
> > To change that policy, I would favor a survey/poll so that not every
> developers says something different as s/he sees best fit.
>
> Be sure to include every other variable with a default in that poll in
> order to be consistent.
>
> There is quite a difference between this variable and most others.
If one changes a recipe a PR change is in virtually all cases mandatory.
Having a line
PR = "r0"
in the recipe increases the chance that updating PR is not forgotten.
(and most, if not all, other variables with a default value will not change
when a recipe is updated).

My two cents.
Do with it whatever you want to.

Frans.

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Anders Darander]

* Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> [110831 12:24]:
> Op 31-08-11 12:06, Paul Menzel schreef:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 31.08.2011, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
> >> Op 31-08-11 01:06, Andreas Müller schreef:
> >>> * build & partially run tested on overo
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmx.de> --- .../thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb           |   12 ++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad11d84 --- /dev/null +++ b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +DESCRIPTION = 
> >>> "Automatic management of removable drives and media for thunar" +SECTION = "x11" +LICENSE = "GPLv2" +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f" +DEPENDS = "exo gtk+ libxfce4ui libxfce4util xfconf libnotify" + +PR = "r0"
> > 
> > (Koen, your messages are still not displayed correctly. The line breaks are missing. Could you check your setup? Your messages are the only ones displaying that problem [1].)

> I blame thunderbird auto updates, it suddenly started doing this and I
> couldn't figure out when to change it back. And honestly, I don't
> care.

Well, even though you don't care, it makes reading your replies a lot
harder than necessary. So I guess that most readers of the list would be
happy, if that issue were resolved.

> >> please remove PR in new recipes
> > Actually I would favor to leave them in.
> Well I don't, and atm I decide if it goes in or not.

To sad. 
It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR actually is in the
recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove one issue with patches.

> > The manual also advises to do this.
> The manual says a lot of things and was written for .dev, not OE-core
> or meta-oe.

Then the manual needs to be updated for the current usage.

> > To change that policy, I would favor a survey/poll so that not every
> > developers says something different as s/he sees best fit.

> Be sure to include every other variable with a default in that poll in
> order to be consistent.

OTOH, most other variables with defaults do not need to be updated in
most patches...

Cheers,
Anders

-- 
Anders Darander
ChargeStorm AB

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 31-08-11 13:55, Anders Darander schreef:
> * Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> [110831 12:24]:
>> Op 31-08-11 12:06, Paul Menzel schreef:
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 31.08.2011, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
>>>> Op 31-08-11 01:06, Andreas Müller schreef:
>>>>> * build & partially run tested on overo
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmx.de> --- .../thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb           |   12 ++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb
>>>>> 
>>>>> diff --git a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad11d84 --- /dev/null +++ b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/thunar-volman/thunar-volman_0.6.0.bb @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
>>>>> +DESCRIPTION = "Automatic management of removable drives and media for thunar" +SECTION = "x11" +LICENSE = "GPLv2" +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f" +DEPENDS = "exo gtk+ libxfce4ui libxfce4util xfconf libnotify" + +PR = "r0"
>>> 
>>> (Koen, your messages are still not displayed correctly. The line breaks are missing. Could you check your setup? Your messages are the only ones displaying that problem [1].)
> 
>> I blame thunderbird auto updates, it suddenly started doing this and I couldn't figure out when to change it back. And honestly, I don't care.
> 
> Well, even though you don't care, it makes reading your replies a lot harder than necessary. So I guess that most readers of the list would be happy, if that issue were resolved.
> 
>>>> please remove PR in new recipes
>>> Actually I would favor to leave them in.
>> Well I don't, and atm I decide if it goes in or not.
> 
> To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR actually is in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove one issue with patches.

That's what review is for, no?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFOXiYyMkyGM64RGpERAk5sAKCBGy3HoOrmcRbZesMeo9HO+ZOLwgCfavXO
fN4x/L4cqaddoE4enL4Dsqw=
=lMNT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 13:16:50 Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 31-08-11 13:55, Anders Darander schreef:
> > To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR actually is
> > in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove one issue with
> > patches.
> 
> That's what review is for, no?

Surely you'd rather people have a better chance of getting it right the first 
time rather than you having to remind them for every patch? The almost 
insignificant burden of a PR = "r0" in each recipe seems worthwhile to me if it 
even helps a single person remember.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Anders Darander]

* Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> [110831 14:17]:
> Op 31-08-11 13:55, Anders Darander schreef:
> > * Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> [110831 12:24]:
> >> Op 31-08-11 12:06, Paul Menzel schreef:
> >>> Am Mittwoch, den 31.08.2011, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
> >>>> please remove PR in new recipes
> >>> Actually I would favor to leave them in.
> >> Well I don't, and atm I decide if it goes in or not.
> > 
> > To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR
> > actually is in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove
> > one issue with patches.

> That's what review is for, no?

Sure, but if we can reduce the need for one extra comment, isn't that
good? Especially when it comes to newcommers.

Cheers,
Anders

-- 
Anders Darander
ChargeStorm AB

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/8/31 Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>

> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 13:16:50 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Op 31-08-11 13:55, Anders Darander schreef:
> > > To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR actually
> is
> > > in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove one issue with
> > > patches.
> >
> > That's what review is for, no?
>
> Surely you'd rather people have a better chance of getting it right the
> first
> time rather than you having to remind them for every patch? The almost
> insignificant burden of a PR = "r0" in each recipe seems worthwhile to me
> if it
> even helps a single person remember.
>

Nah, no good, as it reduces the opportunities for Koen to send nasty
remarks.

Frans.

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:16, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> please remove PR in new recipes
>>>> Actually I would favor to leave them in.
>>> Well I don't, and atm I decide if it goes in or not.
>>
>> To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR actually is in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove one issue with patches.
>
> That's what review is for, no?

Review is to check for mistakes and dropping PR from new recipes just
makes hard for new users and put more work for people to review.

Please accept PR = "r0" on new recipes since it makes it more
consistent and easy to new users.

Regarding you being the person who merge things does not make you the
only one who does it. Remember we can easily fork meta-oe and start
another layer and marketize it here for users. Besides, we (OE
community) can ask for your permission to be revoked and also fix the
issue. I prefer if you refrain of being so arrogant sometimes.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 31 aug. 2011, om 14:27 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:

> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 13:16:50 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 31-08-11 13:55, Anders Darander schreef:
>>> To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR actually is
>>> in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove one issue with
>>> patches.
>> 
>> That's what review is for, no?
> 
> Surely you'd rather people have a better chance of getting it right the first 
> time rather than you having to remind them for every patch? The almost 
> insignificant burden of a PR = "r0" in each recipe seems worthwhile to me if it 
> even helps a single person remember.

I've found that in .dev having PR = r0 in recipes is a bigger burden than not having them, especially when using shared .inc files like xorg. And there have been enough patches where people don't get PR bumps right even if there's a PR already in the recipe. So I'm unconvinced that it makes a real difference in "getting it right".

Even in the extreme case that every packaging patch is missing a PR bump that, for me,  is less annoying than issues I faced in .dev with PR = r0 sprinkled throughout the metadata.

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Anders Darander]

* Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> [110831 14:36]:
> Op 31 aug. 2011, om 14:27 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:

> > On Wednesday 31 August 2011 13:16:50 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 31-08-11 13:55, Anders Darander schreef:
> >>> To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR actually is
> >>> in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove one issue with
> >>> patches.
> >> 
> >> That's what review is for, no?
> > 
> > Surely you'd rather people have a better chance of getting it right the first 
> > time rather than you having to remind them for every patch? The almost 
> > insignificant burden of a PR = "r0" in each recipe seems worthwhile to me if it 
> > even helps a single person remember.

> I've found that in .dev having PR = r0 in recipes is a bigger burden
> than not having them, especially when using shared .inc files like
> xorg. And there have been enough patches where people don't get PR
> bumps right even if there's a PR already in the recipe. So I'm
> unconvinced that it makes a real difference in "getting it right".

> Even in the extreme case that every packaging patch is missing a PR
> bump that, for me,  is less annoying than issues I faced in .dev with
> PR = r0 sprinkled throughout the metadata.

Just curious (and it might convince me and others) what issues have PR =
"r0" caused in .dev?

/Anders

-- 
Anders Darander
ChargeStorm AB

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 31-08-11 14:34, Otavio Salvador schreef:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:16, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
> wrote:
>>>>>> please remove PR in new recipes
>>>>> Actually I would favor to leave them in.
>>>> Well I don't, and atm I decide if it goes in or not.
>>> 
>>> To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR
>>> actually is in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove one
>>> issue with patches.
>> 
>> That's what review is for, no?
> 
> Review is to check for mistakes and dropping PR from new recipes just 
> makes hard for new users and put more work for people to review.
> 
> Please accept PR = "r0" on new recipes since it makes it more consistent
> and easy to new users.

Consistent in what way? If you want to be consistent you need to add *all*
variables to the recipe and set it to their default.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFOXiziMkyGM64RGpERArVFAJ9XOjQIEyuO2O170XTAlyduOxMYYwCeOXzk
oxzHXdyhx78QoZZOu/owDUU=
=J5Ow
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 31-08-11 14:43, Anders Darander schreef:
> * Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> [110831 14:36]:
>> Op 31 aug. 2011, om 14:27 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> 
>>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 13:16:50 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 31-08-11 13:55, Anders Darander schreef:
>>>>> To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR
>>>>> actually is in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove
>>>>> one issue with patches.
>>>> 
>>>> That's what review is for, no?
>>> 
>>> Surely you'd rather people have a better chance of getting it right
>>> the first time rather than you having to remind them for every patch?
>>> The almost insignificant burden of a PR = "r0" in each recipe seems
>>> worthwhile to me if it even helps a single person remember.
> 
>> I've found that in .dev having PR = r0 in recipes is a bigger burden 
>> than not having them, especially when using shared .inc files like 
>> xorg. And there have been enough patches where people don't get PR 
>> bumps right even if there's a PR already in the recipe. So I'm 
>> unconvinced that it makes a real difference in "getting it right".
> 
>> Even in the extreme case that every packaging patch is missing a PR 
>> bump that, for me,  is less annoying than issues I faced in .dev with 
>> PR = r0 sprinkled throughout the metadata.
> 
> Just curious (and it might convince me and others) what issues have PR = 
> "r0" caused in .dev?

The most recent one in .dev was xorg .inc files. Some recipes had PR, some
didn't, and some had INC_PR. In this specific case there should have been
only one PR (or INC_PR) in the .inc.

And of course the good old "add PR=r0 to the .inc, making older recipes go
backwards" thing.

In OE-core/meta-oe the most recent annoyance were the gcc recipes, which now
finally have a centrally managed PR.

No situation is perfect, but my *personal* experience is that not adding
PR=r0 is *less* annoying than adding it.

The big difference between classic OE and the OE-core way is that things are
a lot cleaner to start with, so PR=r0 might be safer to use, but I'd like to
err on the side of caution.

If you all feel really strongly about PR=r0 I'd advice you to send patches
to add it to recipes that need it in OE-core and after those get accepted
send patches for the recipes in meta-oe.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFOXjCDMkyGM64RGpERAi6IAJ9gfcBsVYJnmUyUfuG2FYzM1gwLBwCfS50P
0/Nfa+jBKCmb/T3pNjxwHds=
=bsOl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:45, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> Please accept PR = "r0" on new recipes since it makes it more consistent
>> and easy to new users.
>
> Consistent in what way? If you want to be consistent you need to add *all*
> variables to the recipe and set it to their default.

Not really; consistency has nothing to do with verboseness. PR is
something we will need to change ofthen so makes sense to be in
recipes.

Besides, this is also on the policy so or you change the policy or you
follow it. Otherwise makes no sense to have a policy if the person who
merge the patches do not follow it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Anders Darander]

* Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> [110831 15:01]:
> Op 31-08-11 14:43, Anders Darander schreef:
> > Just curious (and it might convince me and others) what issues have PR = 
> > "r0" caused in .dev?

> The most recent one in .dev was xorg .inc files. Some recipes had PR, some
> didn't, and some had INC_PR. In this specific case there should have been
> only one PR (or INC_PR) in the .inc.

> And of course the good old "add PR=r0 to the .inc, making older recipes go
> backwards" thing.

> In OE-core/meta-oe the most recent annoyance were the gcc recipes, which now
> finally have a centrally managed PR.

> No situation is perfect, but my *personal* experience is that not adding
> PR=r0 is *less* annoying than adding it.

Thanks for the sum up.

At least I have a lot better understanding of your position now. (And
I'll have to ponder a little bit, to see if my opion should change or
not).

Thanks!
Anders

-- 
Anders Darander
ChargeStorm AB

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 31-08-11 15:02, Otavio Salvador schreef:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:45, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
> wrote:
>>> Please accept PR = "r0" on new recipes since it makes it more
>>> consistent and easy to new users.
>> 
>> Consistent in what way? If you want to be consistent you need to add
>> *all* variables to the recipe and set it to their default.
> 
> Not really; consistency has nothing to do with verboseness. PR is 
> something we will need to change ofthen so makes sense to be in recipes.
> 
> Besides, this is also on the policy

The OE classic policy maybe, not on the meta-oe policy[1].

> so or you change the policy or you follow it. Otherwise makes no sense to
> have a policy if the person who merge the patches do not follow it.

- From http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Category:Policy I read:

http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy
http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_log_example
http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Styleguide
http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Versioning_Policy

And none of those say PR = r0 is wanted behaviour. OTOH it doesn't say it's
unwanted either.

regards,

Koen

[1] There is no such thing yet, what I'm doing now is following the OE-core
policies where it makes sense. If someone wants to make a draft policy for
the meta-oe layers, please do so.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFOXjdyMkyGM64RGpERAoitAJ98GgMcmfgZqg0va9wQ7zMksseSsgCfS76f
f3oPFRWC3aD+EuB6AO+C1QQ=
=ahhZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:30, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> Besides, this is also on the policy
>
> The OE classic policy maybe, not on the meta-oe policy[1].

ETOOMANYPOLICIES

>> so or you change the policy or you follow it. Otherwise makes no sense to
>> have a policy if the person who merge the patches do not follow it.
>
> - From http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Category:Policy I read:
>
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_log_example
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Styleguide
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Versioning_Policy
>
> And none of those say PR = r0 is wanted behaviour. OTOH it doesn't say it's
> unwanted either.

So until it is explicit we might keep PR = r0 as it seems most people
prefer this way.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Paul Menzel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, den 31.08.2011, 15:30 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
> Op 31-08-11 15:02, Otavio Salvador schreef:

[…]

> > so or you change the policy or you follow it. Otherwise makes no sense to
> > have a policy if the person who merge the patches do not follow it.
> 
> From http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Category:Policy I read:
> 
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_log_example
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Styleguide
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Versioning_Policy
> 
> And none of those say PR = r0 is wanted behaviour. OTOH it doesn't say it's
> unwanted either.

I am sorry for the confusion. It is actually all over the place in the
user manual [1].

	$ git grep "r0" docs/

This is of course in oe.dev, but the manual is still advertised in the
Wiki [1].


Thanks,

Paul


PS: Koen, thank you for fixing your Thunderbird installation. At least
it looks good in this message.


[1] http://docs.openembedded.org/usermanual/html/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 31-08-11 15:49, Paul Menzel schreef:
> Am Mittwoch, den 31.08.2011, 15:30 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
>> Op 31-08-11 15:02, Otavio Salvador schreef:
> 
> […]
> 
>>> so or you change the policy or you follow it. Otherwise makes no
>>> sense to have a policy if the person who merge the patches do not
>>> follow it.
>> 
>> From http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Category:Policy I read:
>> 
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines 
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy 
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_log_example 
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Styleguide 
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Versioning_Policy
>> 
>> And none of those say PR = r0 is wanted behaviour. OTOH it doesn't say
>> it's unwanted either.
> 
> I am sorry for the confusion. It is actually all over the place in the 
> user manual [1].
> 
> $ git grep "r0" docs/
> 
> This is of course in oe.dev, but the manual is still advertised in the 
> Wiki [1].

Summary: The OE classic manual talks about it, but that's irrelevant for
meta-oe.

> PS: Koen, thank you for fixing your Thunderbird installation. At least it
> looks good in this message.

It turns out that "autowrap" doesn't have an off switch anymore, so the
"fix" was to set the wrap length to 78. The bug is still there, but you
don't notice it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFOXkAhMkyGM64RGpERAsBEAKCcJkFIY2IGtKN+l1LmcUOObF30fwCeJ+Vf
RaFw6hncwiJFXCPV93OMdYM=
=x/Gl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/8/31 Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Op 31-08-11 14:43, Anders Darander schreef:
>

[...]

>
> Just curious (and it might convince me and others) what issues have PR =
> "r0" caused in .dev?

The most recent one in .dev was xorg .inc files. Some recipes had PR, some
> didn't, and some had INC_PR. In this specific case there should have been
> only one PR (or INC_PR) in the .inc.
>
> And of course the good old "add PR=r0 to the .inc, making older recipes go
> backwards" thing.
>
> In OE-core/meta-oe the most recent annoyance were the gcc recipes, which
> now
> finally have a centrally managed PR.
>
> No situation is perfect, but my *personal* experience is that not adding
> PR=r0 is *less* annoying than adding it.
>
> The big difference between classic OE and the OE-core way is that things
> are
> a lot cleaner to start with, so PR=r0 might be safer to use, but I'd like
> to
> err on the side of caution.
>
> If you all feel really strongly about PR=r0 I'd advice you to send patches
> to add it to recipes that need it in OE-core and after those get accepted
> send patches for the recipes in meta-oe.
>
>
inc files are to some extend evil. If an .inc file changes all recipes
depending on it should be rebuild and retested. In an ideal world this
happens, in a real world not.
Also if there is only one version of a recipe .inc does not really bring
much. It mostly complicates things as one now has two places to look at.
(apart from the fact that they allow introducing errors like the PR=r0 in
inc file).
Of course there are places where inc files have their merits. Excellent
example is gcc. However on quite some places they are not too useful (if I
recall the oe-core policy is to   (ideally) have only one or at most two
versions of a recipe)

Frans

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Philip Balister]

On 08/31/2011 06:43 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:30, Koen Kooi<koen@dominion.thruhere.net>  wrote:
>>> Besides, this is also on the policy
>>
>> The OE classic policy maybe, not on the meta-oe policy[1].
>
> ETOOMANYPOLICIES
>
>>> so or you change the policy or you follow it. Otherwise makes no sense to
>>> have a policy if the person who merge the patches do not follow it.
>>
>> - From http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Category:Policy I read:
>>
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_log_example
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Styleguide
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Versioning_Policy
>>
>> And none of those say PR = r0 is wanted behaviour. OTOH it doesn't say it's
>> unwanted either.
>
> So until it is explicit we might keep PR = r0 as it seems most people
> prefer this way.

As long as we are all chiming in, I would like to see all of us decide 
once and for all what to do.

I also prefer the explicitly setting PR = "r0". Can we work out the 
troublesome cases and see if we can get them fixed? Also, what is the 
oe-core view on this?

Let's work out what the technical answer is and go from there.

Philip

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/9/1 Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>

> On 08/31/2011 06:43 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:30, Koen Kooi<koen@dominion.thruhere.**net<koen@dominion.thruhere.net>>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, this is also on the policy
>>>>
>>>
>>> The OE classic policy maybe, not on the meta-oe policy[1].
>>>
>>
>> ETOOMANYPOLICIES
>>
>>  so or you change the policy or you follow it. Otherwise makes no sense to
>>>> have a policy if the person who merge the patches do not follow it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> - From http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Category:Policy<http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Category:Policy>I read:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Commit_Patch_**
>>> Message_Guidelines<http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines>
>>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Commit_Policy<http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy>
>>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Commit_log_example<http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_log_example>
>>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Styleguide<http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Styleguide>
>>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Versioning_Policy<http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Versioning_Policy>
>>>
>>> And none of those say PR = r0 is wanted behaviour. OTOH it doesn't say
>>> it's
>>> unwanted either.
>>>
>>
>> So until it is explicit we might keep PR = r0 as it seems most people
>> prefer this way.
>>
>
> As long as we are all chiming in, I would like to see all of us decide once
> and for all what to do.
>
> I also prefer the explicitly setting PR = "r0". Can we work out the
> troublesome cases and see if we can get them fixed? Also, what is the
> oe-core view on this?
>
> Let's work out what the technical answer is and go from there


Good plan.

BTW not sure if it is feasible but ideally a 2nd assingment to a var should
give an error (or at least a warning). This avoids that e.g. a recipe and a
.inc file set the var (or that a var is set twice within the same recipe, in
the past I have seen this). If a variable is intended to be reassigned, weak
binding should be used. ( ?= or so).

Frans

Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Ahsan, Noor]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
Of
> Frans Meulenbroeks
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:07 PM
> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?
> 
> 2011/9/1 Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>
> 
> > On 08/31/2011 06:43 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:30, Koen
> Kooi<koen@dominion.thruhere.**net<koen@dominion.thruhere.net>>
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Besides, this is also on the policy
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The OE classic policy maybe, not on the meta-oe policy[1].
> >>>
> >>
> >> ETOOMANYPOLICIES
> >>
> >>  so or you change the policy or you follow it. Otherwise makes no
> sense to
> >>>> have a policy if the person who merge the patches do not follow
> it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> - From
>
http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Category:Policy<http://wiki.op
> enembedded.org/index.php/Category:Policy>I read:
> >>>
> >>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Commit_Patch_**
> >>>
>
Message_Guidelines<http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_
> Message_Guidelines>
> >>>
>
http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Commit_Policy<http://wiki.open
> embedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy>
> >>>
>
http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Commit_log_example<http://wiki
> .openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_log_example>
> >>>
>
http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Styleguide<http://wiki.openemb
> edded.org/index.php/Styleguide>
> >>>
>
http://wiki.openembedded.org/**index.php/Versioning_Policy<http://wiki.
> openembedded.org/index.php/Versioning_Policy>
> >>>
> >>> And none of those say PR = r0 is wanted behaviour. OTOH it doesn't
> say
> >>> it's
> >>> unwanted either.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So until it is explicit we might keep PR = r0 as it seems most
> people
> >> prefer this way.
> >>
> >
> > As long as we are all chiming in, I would like to see all of us
> decide once
> > and for all what to do.
> >
> > I also prefer the explicitly setting PR = "r0". Can we work out the
> > troublesome cases and see if we can get them fixed? Also, what is
the
> > oe-core view on this?
> >
> > Let's work out what the technical answer is and go from there
> 
> 
> Good plan.
> 
> BTW not sure if it is feasible but ideally a 2nd assingment to a var
> should
> give an error (or at least a warning). This avoids that e.g. a recipe
> and a
> .inc file set the var (or that a var is set twice within the same
> recipe, in
> the past I have seen this). If a variable is intended to be
reassigned,
> weak
> binding should be used. ( ?= or so).
> 
> Frans
Hi,

I did not see any thread on oe-core mailing list about this. Did we
start this thread there?

Noor

> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel