From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ew0-f225.google.com ([209.85.219.225]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nu6tE-00061v-2H for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:23:37 +0100 Received: by ewy25 with SMTP id 25so2146919ewy.27 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:20:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=MJ9b651zHoCUeb0fmqLkE7jqqINJtACYDd3c2hxRoWI=; b=mKIaNArCwzmdAwYVTX9lXUUONmPYB0s1/oR2R8AbiGfUTcZHZ8sDmd7dSBsnAfq9ds 8urzRKH8zkcmplOSisa+Xo/3GXG+fzdgVHVgtiFG22xTZKBaa9LkMbmstXbDuKtwz/ru taGCm+A2mKYXQz6+aPLwFDNxyKtMPGMMcMa6I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=VKy2Ob83dJ/oAn9AFCrlLlZ/5yv4f/ZRw3r4jpb9VJCj7kEw9rXrqrT4GebTdG0ywL XOJTAVH8sQdH/dVQn5EW4N/WNnv8Hkl4ReNI7wocTzVsuK8wR8JfXHW9RZ0F8EDjDsMH 6SEqOHpWoVh7DSESo7+GEkbq8k4HY1hfDOSzI= Received: by 10.102.129.7 with SMTP id b7mr8975217mud.11.1269361227027; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (161-24.13.24.78.awnet.cz [78.24.13.161]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm30396333mup.3.2010.03.23.09.20.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:20:00 +0100 From: Martin Jansa To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20100323162000.GA32576@jama> References: <20100323094757.GE21210@jama> <20100323155700.GF21210@jama> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.219.225 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: martin.jansa@gmail.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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 16:23:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 09:07:01AM -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > Fair enough, there are valid concerns here, though I think some exist with > or without the bbversions mechanism to a certain extent. If a minor version > is buildable that isn't patched with the security patch, remove it from the > BBVERSIONS variable. Not that different from what you'd do today, just with > less individual recipes. I'm not proposing that we sit down and turn every > recipe into something like what I'm playing with with nano, where you can > build any version that exists, this is just a proof of concept, to > experiment with the new possibilities for structuring of recipes. I expect > in the real world we'd start by using it to consolidate some metadata, as > you mention, and add only versions which we already have, or have tested. > Do you think the feature would be useful in this way? Sure, I'm just pointing that expected use-cases where it's really usefull are a bit limited by those concerns above. So it was more for your question if it's worth it :). > Of course, ideally, we'd set up more testing of things on the target with an > automated testing system of some sort, to make it easier to confirm that we > haven't broken things in other versions and other architectures (and this is > a concern today too). > > Are there any concerns about this feature existing actually being a problem, > in that it will encourage people to start using it, or should we get it into > master and see how it goes? We won't be able to really utilize it in OE > until 1.10 releases and we bump our required bitbake to 1.10 anyway, which > is why I'm doing the testing and experimentation outside it for now. At least I'm happy to see another dev waiting for 1.10 required by oe.dev :). Cheers, -- uin:136542059 jid:Martin.Jansa@gmail.com Jansa Martin sip:jamasip@voip.wengo.fr JaMa