proper(?) way to *require* an earlier, unsupported version of a recipe file?

proper(?) way to *require* an earlier, unsupported version of a recipe file?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  what is the OE philosophy for preferring an earlier version of a
recipe file that doesn't even exist anymore?  for example, the
"watchdog" recipe was recently upgraded from 5.11 to 5.12.  in the
process, the recipe file for 5.11 was removed; therefore, i interpret
that as that OE-core no longer supports that version, which is fine.

  hypothetically, what if someone still *needed* that earlier version?
would it be their responsibility to, say, create a new layer that
re-introduced that older, now-unsupported version?  just curious.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper(?) way to *require* an earlier, unsupported version of a recipe file?

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 12:02 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> what is the OE philosophy for preferring an earlier version of a
> recipe file that doesn't even exist anymore?  for example, the
> "watchdog" recipe was recently upgraded from 5.11 to 5.12.  in the
> process, the recipe file for 5.11 was removed; therefore, i interpret
> that as that OE-core no longer supports that version, which is fine.
> 
>   hypothetically, what if someone still *needed* that earlier version?
> would it be their responsibility to, say, create a new layer that
> re-introduced that older, now-unsupported version?  just curious.

Well, if there is some reason 5.11 is much better "we" as in OE-Core
would like to know about it to evaluate if we should be keeping it
around for some reason. If the reason you want that particular version
is specific to you then yes, your own layer would be the place to
maintain it (or a layer shared with other like minded users).

Cheers,

Richard

Re: proper(?) way to *require* an earlier, unsupported version of a recipe file?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Richard Purdie wrote:

> On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 12:02 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > what is the OE philosophy for preferring an earlier version of a
> > recipe file that doesn't even exist anymore?  for example, the
> > "watchdog" recipe was recently upgraded from 5.11 to 5.12.  in the
> > process, the recipe file for 5.11 was removed; therefore, i interpret
> > that as that OE-core no longer supports that version, which is fine.
> >
> >   hypothetically, what if someone still *needed* that earlier version?
> > would it be their responsibility to, say, create a new layer that
> > re-introduced that older, now-unsupported version?  just curious.
>
> Well, if there is some reason 5.11 is much better "we" as in OE-Core
> would like to know about it to evaluate if we should be keeping it
> around for some reason. If the reason you want that particular version
> is specific to you then yes, your own layer would be the place to
> maintain it (or a layer shared with other like minded users).

  there was nothing about 5.11 that i see as superior, it's just that
that general question came up last week in class and my admittedly
off-the-cuff answer was that OE-core provided a well-defined, stable
set of recipes to build on and if you *chose* to deviate in any way
from that, that was kind of your problem and you had to deal with it.

  which appears to be pretty much what you're saying.  thanks.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================