[PATCH 0/2] BlueZ upgrades

[PATCH 0/2] BlueZ upgrades

[Cristian Iorga]

The following changes since commit 0aaa67a790ab211b35eed58173efa115ceb6e243:

  oeqa/bbtests: Fix to ensure DL_DIR is set (2015-07-08 13:09:28 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib ciorga/PU2
  http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=ciorga/PU2

Cristian Iorga (2):
  bluez5: upgrade to 5.32
  libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

 .../bluez5/{bluez5_5.31.bb => bluez5_5.32.bb}                    | 4 ++--
 .../libical/{libical_1.0.0.bb => libical_1.0.1.bb}               | 9 ++++++---
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/{bluez5_5.31.bb => bluez5_5.32.bb} (88%)
 rename meta/recipes-support/libical/{libical_1.0.0.bb => libical_1.0.1.bb} (67%)

-- 
2.1.4

[PATCH 1/2] bluez5: upgrade to 5.32

[Cristian Iorga]

Mostly a bug fix release.

Fixes in several different areas, including OPP,
ATT and advertising (instance number handling in particular).
Fix for handling a sudden disconnect when a connection setup
process hasn’t yet completed.
New feature: ability to select between letting the stack
handle ATT security elevation or doing the respective
error handling in higher layers.

Signed-off-by: Cristian Iorga <cristian.iorga@intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/{bluez5_5.31.bb => bluez5_5.32.bb} | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/{bluez5_5.31.bb => bluez5_5.32.bb} (88%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/bluez5_5.31.bb b/meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/bluez5_5.32.bb
similarity index 88%
rename from meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/bluez5_5.31.bb
rename to meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/bluez5_5.32.bb
index 395c512..db02be4 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/bluez5_5.31.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/bluez5_5.32.bb
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 require bluez5.inc
-SRC_URI[md5sum] = "cb1db487b65dd4d57a2dd6b8f063c393"
-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "c4b661cc5866d9a9a9d608d700392afa278c3b6fe8426238bf6979be7c63818f"
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "432b1f292c0b78771818c67140baf3d9"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "fe4f35e701cbec04478818adf014ed9bbd1f7d11e2603370f1b70a78106f57f7"
 
 # noinst programs in Makefile.tools that are conditional on READLINE
 # support
-- 
2.1.4

[PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

[Cristian Iorga]

Bugfix release mainly.
autotools build system removed, cmake is now used.
perl is needed during the configure phase.

Signed-off-by: Cristian Iorga <cristian.iorga@intel.com>
---
 .../libical/{libical_1.0.0.bb => libical_1.0.1.bb}               | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-support/libical/{libical_1.0.0.bb => libical_1.0.1.bb} (67%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.0.bb b/meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.1.bb
similarity index 67%
rename from meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.0.bb
rename to meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.1.bb
index be6b635..b50cf7e 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.0.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.1.bb
@@ -7,7 +7,10 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=d4fc58309d8ed46587ac63bb449d82f8 \
 SECTION = "libs"
 
 SRC_URI = "https://github.com/${BPN}/${BPN}/archive/v${PV}.tar.gz"
-SRC_URI[md5sum] = "f4b8e33ae5efb2f025eb43ce69682a36"
-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "0072e83834092315772e6719b85fc8b11530b1ff53f4d108315fb38cddbce8c2"
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "af91db06b22559f863869c5a382ad08a"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "7d5f613454ec6c7d1bcfb441c919215be53292aa15cd1cb14249d1413d6c610c"
+
+inherit cmake perlnative
+
+FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/cmake"
 
-inherit autotools
-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1851 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:28:11PM +0300, Cristian Iorga wrote:
> Bugfix release mainly.
> autotools build system removed, cmake is now used.
> perl is needed during the configure phase.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cristian Iorga <cristian.iorga@intel.com>
> ---
>  .../libical/{libical_1.0.0.bb => libical_1.0.1.bb}               | 9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>  rename meta/recipes-support/libical/{libical_1.0.0.bb => libical_1.0.1.bb} (67%)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.0.bb b/meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.1.bb
> similarity index 67%
> rename from meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.0.bb
> rename to meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.1.bb
> index be6b635..b50cf7e 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.0.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/libical/libical_1.0.1.bb
> @@ -7,7 +7,10 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=d4fc58309d8ed46587ac63bb449d82f8 \
>  SECTION = "libs"
>  
>  SRC_URI = "https://github.com/${BPN}/${BPN}/archive/v${PV}.tar.gz"

aren't github archives regenerated from time to time with different
checksums?

> -SRC_URI[md5sum] = "f4b8e33ae5efb2f025eb43ce69682a36"
> -SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "0072e83834092315772e6719b85fc8b11530b1ff53f4d108315fb38cddbce8c2"
> +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "af91db06b22559f863869c5a382ad08a"
> +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "7d5f613454ec6c7d1bcfb441c919215be53292aa15cd1cb14249d1413d6c610c"
> +
> +inherit cmake perlnative
> +
> +FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/cmake"
>  
> -inherit autotools
> -- 
> 2.1.4
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 441 bytes --]

On 9 July 2015 at 15:32, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:

> aren't github archives regenerated from time to time with different
> checksums?
>

Yes.  I keep on meaning to write a QA test for this. :)

Cristi - if this is the best libical has as a tarball release then we
should do a proper git clone.  Amazingly, the download button on their
website links to a tarball of master which is borderline reckless.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 946 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

[Iorga, Cristian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

Hi all,

Hahaha. I am laughing because I assumed that the word “archive” means the file will stay there forever with the same checksum. Silly me. ☺
They have another link, but I am not sure if that stays up and that the checksum does not change.
Is this always true, that the checksum changes?

Thanks,
Cristian


From: Burton, Ross [mailto:ross.burton@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 6:10 PM
To: Martin Jansa
Cc: Iorga, Cristian; OE-core
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1


On 9 July 2015 at 15:32, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com<mailto:martin.jansa@gmail.com>> wrote:
aren't github archives regenerated from time to time with different
checksums?

Yes.  I keep on meaning to write a QA test for this. :)

Cristi - if this is the best libical has as a tarball release then we should do a proper git clone.  Amazingly, the download button on their website links to a tarball of master which is borderline reckless.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5372 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]

On 9 July 2015 at 16:57, Iorga, Cristian <cristian.iorga@intel.com> wrote:

> Hahaha. I am laughing because I assumed that the word “archive” means the
> file will stay there forever with the same checksum. Silly me. J
>
> They have another link, but I am not sure if that stays up and that the
> checksum does not change.
>
> Is this always true, that the checksum changes?
>
>
Github automated tarballs are apparently dynamically generated and cached.
They also offer hosting for release tarballs, but not many projects use
those.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1491 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

[Iorga, Cristian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]

Would this one qualify as a release tarball download link?

https://github.com/libical/libical/releases/download/v1.0.1/libical-1.0.1.tar.gz

Thanks,
Cristian

From: Burton, Ross [mailto:ross.burton@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 7:05 PM
To: Iorga, Cristian
Cc: Martin Jansa; OE-core
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1


On 9 July 2015 at 16:57, Iorga, Cristian <cristian.iorga@intel.com<mailto:cristian.iorga@intel.com>> wrote:
Hahaha. I am laughing because I assumed that the word “archive” means the file will stay there forever with the same checksum. Silly me. ☺
They have another link, but I am not sure if that stays up and that the checksum does not change.
Is this always true, that the checksum changes?

Github automated tarballs are apparently dynamically generated and cached.  They also offer hosting for release tarballs, but not many projects use those.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5292 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 279 bytes --]

On 9 July 2015 at 17:07, Iorga, Cristian <cristian.iorga@intel.com> wrote:

> Would this one qualify as a release tarball download link?
>
>
>
>
> https://github.com/libical/libical/releases/download/v1.0.1/libical-1.0.1.tar.gz
>

Yes, wonders never cease. :)

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1118 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] libical: upgrade to 1.0.1

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:09:59PM +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 9 July 2015 at 15:32, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > aren't github archives regenerated from time to time with different
> > checksums?
> >
> 
> Yes.  I keep on meaning to write a QA test for this. :)

FWIW: someone in systemd herd said that now the archives on github
should be stable as long as git-archive is stable.
https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg33014.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg33015.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg33017.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg33016.html

Now they are using them instead of proper tarballs:
https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg33054.html

> Cristi - if this is the best libical has as a tarball release then we
> should do a proper git clone.  Amazingly, the download button on their
> website links to a tarball of master which is borderline reckless.
> 
> Ross

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]