[PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Ben Gardiner]

Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>

This recipe is a port of recipes/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb from
git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded, commits
01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad 'raptor: added recipe' and
f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 'raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS'

The recipe was modified by adding a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment.

Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>

---

Not tested in the oe-core + meta-openembedded et. al. layers. We are not
ready yet to migrate from the 2011.03-maintenance branch. This patch is
proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy
requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch and submit
a subsequent pull-request for commit
f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS
---
 meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb |   13 +++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb

diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb b/meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..84fa69e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+DESCRIPTION = "Raptor RDF Parser Library"
+SECTION = "libs"
+HOMEPAGE = "http://librdf.org/raptor/"
+LICENSE = "LGPL 2.1/GPL 2/Apache 2.0"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=751419260aa954499f7abaabaa882bbe"
+PR = "r0"
+SRC_URI = "http://download.librdf.org/source/raptor-${PV}.tar.gz"
+DEPENDS = "libxml2"
+
+inherit autotools pkgconfig
+
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "992061488af7a9e2d933df6b694bb876"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "db3172d6f3c432623ed87d7d609161973d2f7098e3d2233d0702fbcc22cfd8ca"
-- 
1.7.4.1

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Koen Kooi]

Op 28 jul. 2011, om 05:38 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:

> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>
> 
> This recipe is a port of recipes/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb from
> git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded, commits
> 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad 'raptor: added recipe' and
> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 'raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS'

Why does this need to be in OE-core and not in some other layer? It doesn't look so core to me, especially since nothing in oe-core (or meta-oe/efl/gnome for that matter) depends on it

> 
> The recipe was modified by adding a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
> 
> ---
> 
> Not tested in the oe-core + meta-openembedded et. al. layers.

So why are you sending it if it isn't tested?

> We are not
> ready yet to migrate from the 2011.03-maintenance branch. This patch is
> proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy
> requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch

Where does it say it's OK to do a pull request for untested recipes? And where does it say it needs to be in OE-core first?

> and submit
> a subsequent pull-request for commit

I seriously disagree with sending pull requests for the maintenaince branch for untested recipes!

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2669 bytes --]

2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>

> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
>

Eh, yes and no.

I did write the original recipe and commited it on 14 aug 2010 with a
sign-off message.
As such this got my signoff, but I am not sure the signoff should be
repeated if this moved to oe-core.

My sign-off at that time is definitely not to be used as a suggestion it is
ok for oe-core (actually I feel this is not something for oe-core)

And (in reply to Koen), this recipe was tested by me for openembedded when I
submitted it. Afaik I have never build it with oe-core/meta-oe.
Reason to add it then was because flickcurl needed it (and I needed
flickcurl).

Frans.


> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>
>
> This recipe is a port of recipes/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb from
> git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded, commits
> 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad 'raptor: added recipe' and
> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 'raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS'
>
> The recipe was modified by adding a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>
> ---
>
> Not tested in the oe-core + meta-openembedded et. al. layers. We are not
> ready yet to migrate from the 2011.03-maintenance branch. This patch is
> proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy
> requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch and submit
> a subsequent pull-request for commit
> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS
> ---
>  meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb |   13 +++++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bbb/meta/recipes-support/raptor/
> raptor_1.4.21.bb
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..84fa69e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb
> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> +DESCRIPTION = "Raptor RDF Parser Library"
> +SECTION = "libs"
> +HOMEPAGE = "http://librdf.org/raptor/"
> +LICENSE = "LGPL 2.1/GPL 2/Apache 2.0"
> +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=751419260aa954499f7abaabaa882bbe"
> +PR = "r0"
> +SRC_URI = "http://download.librdf.org/source/raptor-${PV}.tar.gz"
> +DEPENDS = "libxml2"
> +
> +inherit autotools pkgconfig
> +
> +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "992061488af7a9e2d933df6b694bb876"
> +SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
> "db3172d6f3c432623ed87d7d609161973d2f7098e3d2233d0702fbcc22cfd8ca"
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4073 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Ben Gardiner]

Hi Koen, Frans,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 28 jul. 2011, om 05:38 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>
>>
>> This recipe is a port of recipes/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb from
>> git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded, commits
>> 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad 'raptor: added recipe' and
>> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 'raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS'
>
> Why does this need to be in OE-core and not in some other layer? It doesn't look so core to me, especially since nothing in oe-core (or meta-oe/efl/gnome for that matter) depends on it

Because oe-core's meta/recipes-support (naively) seemed like a
reasonable place for it. I would be happy to re-spin the patch for
locating it in any layer. Please advise me.

It's true that nothing depends on it. As Frans mentions later it's
only dependent in oe.dev is flickrcurl. Raptor is both a library and a
utility; we use the latter so raptor itself is a dependency of our
images.

>>
>> The recipe was modified by adding a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Not tested in the oe-core + meta-openembedded et. al. layers.

I'm sorry for the confusion -- this recipe is/was tested in oe.dev and
2011.03-maintenance branches.

> So why are you sending it if it isn't tested?
>
>> We are not
>> ready yet to migrate from the 2011.03-maintenance branch. This patch is
>> proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy
>> requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch
>
> Where does it say it's OK to do a pull request for untested recipes? And where does it say it needs to be in OE-core first?

My understanding of Tom's post to the oe.dev mailing list is that
commits in pull-requests for 2011.03 need to first be oe-core or one
of its layers.

In Message-ID: <4DFA7108.5020103@mentor.com> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at
5:09 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> As part of this weeks TSC meeting, an agenda item was brought up about
> the 2011.03-maintenance branch and oe-core / etc.  I have now updated
> the policy about where changes need to be before they can be included in
> 2011.03-maintenance to include being in oe-core / meta-oe or other
> relevant public layer instead of being only in the oe.dev master branch.
>  This is not a policy change, but a clarification of what was there
> previously.  Thanks all!
>

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
<fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
>
> Eh, yes and no.
>
> I did write the original recipe and commited it on 14 aug 2010 with a
> sign-off message.
> As such this got my signoff, but I am not sure the signoff should be
> repeated if this moved to oe-core.

Fair enough. It is your Sign-off to give or take.

I was following the patch message guidelines. "Example: Importaing
from Elsewhere Modified" in particular:

http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Example:_Importing_from_Elsewhere_Modified

I will remove your Sign-off in v2.

> My sign-off at that time is definitely not to be used as a suggestion it is
> ok for oe-core (actually I feel this is not something for oe-core)

Understood -- I am happy to re-spin for inclusion in any layer. Please advise.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5405 bytes --]

2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>

> Hi Koen, Frans,
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Op 28 jul. 2011, om 05:38 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>
> >>
> >> This recipe is a port of recipes/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb from
> >> git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded, commits
> >> 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad 'raptor: added recipe' and
> >> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 'raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS'
> >
> > Why does this need to be in OE-core and not in some other layer? It
> doesn't look so core to me, especially since nothing in oe-core (or
> meta-oe/efl/gnome for that matter) depends on it
>
> Because oe-core's meta/recipes-support (naively) seemed like a
> reasonable place for it. I would be happy to re-spin the patch for
> locating it in any layer. Please advise me.
>

oe-core is only for core recipes. Not sure about the exact definition, but I
suspect it is something like "recipes that (virtually) everybody needs".
I'm not sure about layer policies, but maybe this could go to meta-oe.

>
> It's true that nothing depends on it. As Frans mentions later it's
> only dependent in oe.dev is flickrcurl. Raptor is both a library and a
> utility; we use the latter so raptor itself is a dependency of our
> images.
>
> >>
> >> The recipe was modified by adding a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Not tested in the oe-core + meta-openembedded et. al. layers.
>
> I'm sorry for the confusion -- this recipe is/was tested in oe.dev and
> 2011.03-maintenance branches.
>

I'd say that before submitting you should as a minimum test that it builds
properly in the layer you are submitting it (so e.g. we're sure all depends
are there).

>
> > So why are you sending it if it isn't tested?
> >
> >> We are not
> >> ready yet to migrate from the 2011.03-maintenance branch. This patch is
> >> proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy
> >> requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch
> >
> > Where does it say it's OK to do a pull request for untested recipes? And
> where does it say it needs to be in OE-core first?
>
> My understanding of Tom's post to the oe.dev mailing list is that
> commits in pull-requests for 2011.03 need to first be oe-core or one
> of its layers.
>

No idea here.
But why would add a patch for LIC_FILES_CHECKSUM in the maintenance tree.
If I recall correctly those are not needed in 2011.03 (but if it is and it
is missing from the recipe, I think it should be added, if not, probably
leave the recipe as is).

>
> In Message-ID: <4DFA7108.5020103@mentor.com> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at
> 5:09 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As part of this weeks TSC meeting, an agenda item was brought up about
> > the 2011.03-maintenance branch and oe-core / etc.  I have now updated
> > the policy about where changes need to be before they can be included in
> > 2011.03-maintenance to include being in oe-core / meta-oe or other
> > relevant public layer instead of being only in the oe.dev master branch.
> >  This is not a policy change, but a clarification of what was there
> > previously.  Thanks all!
> >
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
> <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
> >
> > Eh, yes and no.
> >
> > I did write the original recipe and commited it on 14 aug 2010 with a
> > sign-off message.
> > As such this got my signoff, but I am not sure the signoff should be
> > repeated if this moved to oe-core.
>
> Fair enough. It is your Sign-off to give or take.
>
> I was following the patch message guidelines. "Example: Importaing
> from Elsewhere Modified" in particular:
>
>
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Example:_Importing_from_Elsewhere_Modified
>

Ah ok, Those guidelines are fairly new and I was not too aware of them. If
it is in accordance with the guidelines it is fine with me to keep them.
I was mainly triggered by the signed-off lines at the beginning of your
message (which I don't think are in accordance to the above mentioned
guidelines).
The only concern I have is that the sign-off would be interpreted as my
blessing for this patch in oe-core. If it only is used as an indicator of
the origin or as a statement that I released and was entitled to release the
original stuff, that is ok (as that is still appropriate).

>
> I will remove your Sign-off in v2.
>
> > My sign-off at that time is definitely not to be used as a suggestion it
> is
> > ok for oe-core (actually I feel this is not something for oe-core)
>
> Understood -- I am happy to re-spin for inclusion in any layer. Please
> advise.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ben Gardiner
>
> ---
> Nanometrics Inc.
> http://www.nanometrics.ca
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7858 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Ben Gardiner]

Hi Frans,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
<fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>>
>> Hi Koen, Frans,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Op 28 jul. 2011, om 05:38 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:
>> >
>> >> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>
>> >>
>> >> This recipe is a port of recipes/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb from
>> >> git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded, commits
>> >> 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad 'raptor: added recipe' and
>> >> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 'raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS'
>> >
>> > Why does this need to be in OE-core and not in some other layer? It
>> > doesn't look so core to me, especially since nothing in oe-core (or
>> > meta-oe/efl/gnome for that matter) depends on it
>>
>> Because oe-core's meta/recipes-support (naively) seemed like a
>> reasonable place for it. I would be happy to re-spin the patch for
>> locating it in any layer. Please advise me.
>
> oe-core is only for core recipes. Not sure about the exact definition, but I
> suspect it is something like "recipes that (virtually) everybody needs".
> I'm not sure about layer policies, but maybe this could go to meta-oe.

Ok -- I suppose not everybody needs to parse RDF in various serialized
representations :)

V2 will be targetted to meta-oe, thanks.

>>
>> It's true that nothing depends on it. As Frans mentions later it's
>> only dependent in oe.dev is flickrcurl. Raptor is both a library and a
>> utility; we use the latter so raptor itself is a dependency of our
>> images.
>>
>> >>
>> >> The recipe was modified by adding a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> Not tested in the oe-core + meta-openembedded et. al. layers.
>>
>> I'm sorry for the confusion -- this recipe is/was tested in oe.dev and
>> 2011.03-maintenance branches.
>
> I'd say that before submitting you should as a minimum test that it builds
> properly in the layer you are submitting it (so e.g. we're sure all depends
> are there).
>>
>> > So why are you sending it if it isn't tested?
>> >
>> >> We are not
>> >> ready yet to migrate from the 2011.03-maintenance branch. This patch is
>> >> proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy
>> >> requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch
>> >
>> > Where does it say it's OK to do a pull request for untested recipes? And
>> > where does it say it needs to be in OE-core first?
>>
>> My understanding of Tom's post to the oe.dev mailing list is that
>> commits in pull-requests for 2011.03 need to first be oe-core or one
>> of its layers.
>
> No idea here.
> But why would add a patch for LIC_FILES_CHECKSUM in the maintenance tree.
> If I recall correctly those are not needed in 2011.03 (but if it is and it
> is missing from the recipe, I think it should be added, if not, probably
> leave the recipe as is).

Well, I would not submit _this_ patch for pull-request. I was hoping
to get this version of raptor included and then submit a pull-request
for a cherry-pick of the patch to add libxml2 to DEPENDS.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Ben Gardiner
<bengardiner@nanometrics.ca> wrote:
> This patch is
> proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy
> requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch and submit
> a subsequent pull-request for commit
> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS


>>
>> In Message-ID: <4DFA7108.5020103@mentor.com> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at
>> 5:09 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > As part of this weeks TSC meeting, an agenda item was brought up about
>> > the 2011.03-maintenance branch and oe-core / etc.  I have now updated
>> > the policy about where changes need to be before they can be included in
>> > 2011.03-maintenance to include being in oe-core / meta-oe or other
>> > relevant public layer instead of being only in the oe.dev master branch.
>> >  This is not a policy change, but a clarification of what was there
>> > previously.  Thanks all!
>> >
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
>> <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > Eh, yes and no.
>> >
>> > I did write the original recipe and commited it on 14 aug 2010 with a
>> > sign-off message.
>> > As such this got my signoff, but I am not sure the signoff should be
>> > repeated if this moved to oe-core.
>>
>> Fair enough. It is your Sign-off to give or take.
>>
>> I was following the patch message guidelines. "Example: Importaing
>> from Elsewhere Modified" in particular:
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Example:_Importing_from_Elsewhere_Modified
>
> Ah ok, Those guidelines are fairly new and I was not too aware of them. If
> it is in accordance with the guidelines it is fine with me to keep them.
> I was mainly triggered by the signed-off lines at the beginning of your
> message (which I don't think are in accordance to the above mentioned
> guidelines).

Oh. I thought they were [in accordance]. I guess there would usually
be a commit body before the initial Signed-off-by:'s ; however, there
was no original commit body to preserve.

> The only concern I have is that the sign-off would be interpreted as my
> blessing for this patch in oe-core.

Your blessing is not mine to give. I never intended to give it.

> If it only is used as an indicator of
> the origin or as a statement that I released and was entitled to release the
> original stuff, that is ok (as that is still appropriate).

Yes, the sign-offs at the beginning are preservations of the
provenance of the patch only.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1680 bytes --]

2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>

>
>
> Well, I would not submit _this_ patch for pull-request. I was hoping
> to get this version of raptor included and then submit a pull-request
> for a cherry-pick of the patch to add libxml2 to DEPENDS.
>

Ah, missed that you also added libxml2.
Not sure about the policies of the maintenance branch, but I suspect the
proper way would be to fix and test in openembedded then submit a pull
request.
Then again maybe the policies for the maintenance branch are different.

[...]

> >>
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Example:_Importing_from_Elsewhere_Modified
> >
> > Ah ok, Those guidelines are fairly new and I was not too aware of them.
> If
> > it is in accordance with the guidelines it is fine with me to keep them.
> > I was mainly triggered by the signed-off lines at the beginning of your
> > message (which I don't think are in accordance to the above mentioned
> > guidelines).
>
>
> Oh. I thought they were [in accordance]. I guess there would usually
> be a commit body before the initial Signed-off-by:'s ; however, there
> was no original commit body to preserve.
>

Ah ok, understood.
Actually, I guess we should preserve the first line of the commit too.
This is what git log says:

frans@frans-desktop:~/workspace/openembedded/recipes/raptor$ git log *
commit 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad
Author: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat Aug 14 21:27:49 2010 +0200

    raptor: added recipe

    Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>



Best regards, Frans.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2512 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Ben Gardiner]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
<fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>>
>>
>> Well, I would not submit _this_ patch for pull-request. I was hoping
>> to get this version of raptor included and then submit a pull-request
>> for a cherry-pick of the patch to add libxml2 to DEPENDS.
>
> Ah, missed that you also added libxml2.
> Not sure about the policies of the maintenance branch, but I suspect the
> proper way would be to fix and test in openembedded then submit a pull
> request.
> Then again maybe the policies for the maintenance branch are different.

:) They are. AFAICT I need to get this recipe (including libxml2 dep
update) into oe-core or its layers :)

>
> [...]
>>
>> >>
>> >> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Example:_Importing_from_Elsewhere_Modified
>> >
>> > Ah ok, Those guidelines are fairly new and I was not too aware of them.
>> > If
>> > it is in accordance with the guidelines it is fine with me to keep them.
>> > I was mainly triggered by the signed-off lines at the beginning of your
>> > message (which I don't think are in accordance to the above mentioned
>> > guidelines).
>>
>>
>> Oh. I thought they were [in accordance]. I guess there would usually
>> be a commit body before the initial Signed-off-by:'s ; however, there
>> was no original commit body to preserve.
>
> Ah ok, understood.
> Actually, I guess we should preserve the first line of the commit too.
> This is what git log says:
>
> frans@frans-desktop:~/workspace/openembedded/recipes/raptor$ git log *
> commit 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad
> Author: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>
> Date:   Sat Aug 14 21:27:49 2010 +0200
>
>     raptor: added recipe
>
>     Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>

Yes! Good point, Frans. It is 'added' not 'add' Sorry about that.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Koen Kooi]

Op 28 jul. 2011, om 16:29 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
> <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Well, I would not submit _this_ patch for pull-request. I was hoping
>>> to get this version of raptor included and then submit a pull-request
>>> for a cherry-pick of the patch to add libxml2 to DEPENDS.
>> 
>> Ah, missed that you also added libxml2.
>> Not sure about the policies of the maintenance branch, but I suspect the
>> proper way would be to fix and test in openembedded then submit a pull
>> request.
>> Then again maybe the policies for the maintenance branch are different.
> 
> :) They are. AFAICT I need to get this recipe (including libxml2 dep
> update) into oe-core or its layers :)

I ask again, what makes you think that? Pretty much all of the recent maintenance commits are from .dev.

As for getting it in meta-oe, you need to test it first in that layer before sending a patch.

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Ben Gardiner]

Hi Koen,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 28 jul. 2011, om 16:29 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
>> <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I would not submit _this_ patch for pull-request. I was hoping
>>>> to get this version of raptor included and then submit a pull-request
>>>> for a cherry-pick of the patch to add libxml2 to DEPENDS.
>>>
>>> Ah, missed that you also added libxml2.
>>> Not sure about the policies of the maintenance branch, but I suspect the
>>> proper way would be to fix and test in openembedded then submit a pull
>>> request.
>>> Then again maybe the policies for the maintenance branch are different.
>>
>> :) They are. AFAICT I need to get this recipe (including libxml2 dep
>> update) into oe-core or its layers :)
>
> I ask again, what makes you think that? Pretty much all of the recent maintenance commits are from .dev.

I'm sorry I guess my previous reply got lost in the noise. I think
that because I read it from Tom. If it is at all possible to
circumvent this requirement and avoid bothering you on the oe-core
list that I would be happy to be obliged.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Ben Gardiner
<bengardiner@nanometrics.ca> wrote:
> Hi Koen, Frans,
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> And where does it say it needs to be in OE-core first?
>
> My understanding of Tom's post to the oe.dev mailing list is that
> commits in pull-requests for 2011.03 need to first be oe-core or one
> of its layers.
>
> In Message-ID: <4DFA7108.5020103@mentor.com> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at
> 5:09 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As part of this weeks TSC meeting, an agenda item was brought up about
>> the 2011.03-maintenance branch and oe-core / etc.  I have now updated
>> the policy about where changes need to be before they can be included in
>> 2011.03-maintenance to include being in oe-core / meta-oe or other
>> relevant public layer instead of being only in the oe.dev master branch.
>>  This is not a policy change, but a clarification of what was there
>> previously.  Thanks all!


> As for getting it in meta-oe, you need to test it first in that layer before sending a patch.

Understood; I will test in meta-oe before sending a patch.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Koen Kooi]

Op 28 jul. 2011, om 16:43 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:

> Hi Koen,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Op 28 jul. 2011, om 16:29 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
>>> <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I would not submit _this_ patch for pull-request. I was hoping
>>>>> to get this version of raptor included and then submit a pull-request
>>>>> for a cherry-pick of the patch to add libxml2 to DEPENDS.
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, missed that you also added libxml2.
>>>> Not sure about the policies of the maintenance branch, but I suspect the
>>>> proper way would be to fix and test in openembedded then submit a pull
>>>> request.
>>>> Then again maybe the policies for the maintenance branch are different.
>>> 
>>> :) They are. AFAICT I need to get this recipe (including libxml2 dep
>>> update) into oe-core or its layers :)
>> 
>> I ask again, what makes you think that? Pretty much all of the recent maintenance commits are from .dev.
> 
> I'm sorry I guess my previous reply got lost in the noise. I think
> that because I read it from Tom. If it is at all possible to
> circumvent this requirement

What did you exactly read and why do you think it's a requirement? From http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/2011.03-maintenance:

"Changes may reside in either the openembedded 'master' repository OR a relevant public layer in the oe-core / meta-oe / etc universe"

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Ben Gardiner]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 28 jul. 2011, om 16:43 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Hi Koen,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 28 jul. 2011, om 16:29 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
>>>> <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I would not submit _this_ patch for pull-request. I was hoping
>>>>>> to get this version of raptor included and then submit a pull-request
>>>>>> for a cherry-pick of the patch to add libxml2 to DEPENDS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, missed that you also added libxml2.
>>>>> Not sure about the policies of the maintenance branch, but I suspect the
>>>>> proper way would be to fix and test in openembedded then submit a pull
>>>>> request.
>>>>> Then again maybe the policies for the maintenance branch are different.
>>>>
>>>> :) They are. AFAICT I need to get this recipe (including libxml2 dep
>>>> update) into oe-core or its layers :)
>>>
>>> I ask again, what makes you think that? Pretty much all of the recent maintenance commits are from .dev.
>>
>> I'm sorry I guess my previous reply got lost in the noise. I think
>> that because I read it from Tom. If it is at all possible to
>> circumvent this requirement
>
> What did you exactly read and why do you think it's a requirement? From http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/2011.03-maintenance:
>
> "Changes may reside in either the openembedded 'master' repository OR a relevant public layer in the oe-core / meta-oe / etc universe"

I read:

In Message-ID: <4DFA7108.5020103@mentor.com> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at
5:09 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> [...]
> the policy about where changes need to be before they can be included in
> 2011.03-maintenance to include being in oe-core / meta-oe or other
> relevant public layer instead of being only in the oe.dev master branch.

and took "instead of being only" to mean that the development effort
must shift to pushing into oe-core (or it's layers).

My mistake and thank you for clarifying this is not a requirement.
Please drop this patch from consideration.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca