From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-gw0-f47.google.com ([74.125.83.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nu0Wu-000228-FS for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:36:08 +0100 Received: by gwaa20 with SMTP id a20so452507gwa.6 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:32:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=huymbf2F2qVT+7y3JqcWiR2CekPpqu0SdvBfiZqumoo=; b=IhRnBfpqDtHFMs7tStDwmNyr7+Wm7NxSFAVYNPO0gmu7xQbzUcb7NOiEaJgad+n7Vk 5B7pfkxGaFr/Rkx0ZEmgVBILP8pVTVI632m2gJklETAg0oteJzgfuSfKvBeXUA7JbT92 sb2PpHpjuW6NKM6+2XEIcvXZB1aay6cM7Hs0Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Hdt1hsUR2u2MPtMCRxCgzkUIAXewO17yWRvDBwxTnq3LO6J4eaD6/qwEMVXQC3eDUZ o86gcGQW5HM3ste7917V6p07EdA06pjHHfQXruXmYW4/rA00Vu0x+t7NphKs+0WcHP3J VZi2/t6b+fC9vGplaN8PAAZQyBcBKAGLk+3xc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.27.34 with SMTP id e34mr5100607anj.118.1269336779282; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:32:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:32:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: Frans Meulenbroeks To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.83.47 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 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 09:36:09 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Chris, while this is a nice idea it conflicts with having checksums in the recipe, as that makes the recipes unique. Unless of course there is (or we create) a way to have multiple checksums in a recipe and pick the one that is for the version we are building. Then again I feel it is in most cases better to move forward. E.g. for your nano example: why would people want to build say nano 1.0.2 if there is also a working 1.0.6 recipe (or even a 2.2.3 one or whatever version it is at). I feel it is better to spent time to fix/improve/add/repair the latest version than spend time fixing old code. (generally speaking that is) Frans.