From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [64.233.182.189] (helo=nf-out-0910.google.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J2DDf-0003dM-PE for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:04:51 +0100 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id h3so1249818nfh for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:00:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.84.5 with SMTP id h5mr7151648fgb.1197410436404; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:00:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.61.156? ( [194.79.8.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y18sm7267772fkd.2007.12.11.14.00.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:00:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:04:16 +0200 From: Paul Sokolovsky X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.64.01 Christmas Edition) Professional X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1617210780.20071212000416@gmail.com> To: openembedded-devel MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org Subject: [RFC] Using ${PR} instead of ${DATETIME} in deployed kernel image filename X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:04:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello openembedded-devel, I already mentioned this in http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2007-December/003695.html , here's specific RFC: I'd like to propose using the following filename pattern for deployed kernel images: "${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}-${PV}-${PR}-${MACHINE}", instead of "${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}-${PV}-${MACHINE}-${DATETIME}". This will ensure that kernels built from the same recipe are named consistently, and thus will allow users and developers track kernels easier. Also, any change to build configuration should be accompanied by recipe PR bump, so new kernel file will be produces. So: 1. Does anybody see something grossly wrong with this scheme? 2. Otherwise, I'm going to change this for linux-handhelds-2.6, and would like to encourage maintainers of the other kernel recipes to do the same. -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com