From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 16E78E00A0A; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:59:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [74.125.82.54 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (martin.jansa[at]gmail.com) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CD4E0083C for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id m123so26104680wma.0 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-disposition :user-agent; bh=/zs0c6Oamp1oqUL52vZu6K3WB/3FZp92vBOWhdTPSTY=; b=E9bZtA35CDO2hnNiaSmnvFW3wlCj8GywndzaT6rYfbNpJYL48mG54DAQufDB0I3VSF ZobxvRPCVcSL4fC/K9gZqGHZjckai1ux3tCeWCx3ejxMnjFjgrGiG94O04uxJtVvrB4R djM+E5f9TqlXllLyyb4UFCS2fA5Sbsr8IL07Et0gfbpM2HA6rgTC0WGnsG6VJYTkuBdr YjFiK79BDpSfS19b0VyEk+MinlFOA4dPxqB/nn46Ea9qoGPNZ4zrTSrfAp+Xfs7gXqUc FBWsUWGMgcVjLXXd7qgKZhtP3WvUjhRShTHddYfSctCZLQ0V1O+DADbPMumocLvM1B51 Ll/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:subject:message-id:mime-version :content-disposition:user-agent; bh=/zs0c6Oamp1oqUL52vZu6K3WB/3FZp92vBOWhdTPSTY=; b=pDnsZGljQi+pQcRqFEL+vBn1mVSKOSsVMoPCb0MtwOZovzfnx1Q/yZCv9kNZk1Eyc7 5ud3Qy4aVMr7gSYVR3lNPb8ECJ24p4wEpHehiGSebWmEhWHninE4D1bOc4Ob1ymYFCb3 jtQxdz01Ks2CbBIGyo56i3zZseJ+Rdfzwpju+kB0rO9RDXX/mL7RbevKMLxa8TTf/QbN hG7DV6TyaC/BaiTZE5wE1GgwyhGmazYYfbXQJ8yBt8jTF6stxSYBDmNWKdRrFxrosT7H 9kXtgNhsKbYS0d530hGPA4aEylt40QNnPIjn6FgUF2zJYNgcR3BXXu3dBymSnnsM3Vux QDww== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7LYLJ3t6/4y2efhBxBNP9Fx0FOczxB0axlGGMT9wXHde3oeqwA GKR4Z6sndNkimLTy X-Received: by 10.28.23.198 with SMTP id 189mr465932wmx.38.1492808342088; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([217.30.68.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l132sm3586020wmd.10.2017.04.21.13.59.00 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:59:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Jansa X-Google-Original-From: Martin Jansa Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:59:11 +0200 To: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org Message-ID: <20170421205911.GC3024@jama> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) Subject: [RFC][meta-gplv2] layer priority and worth creating branch compatible with morty? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 20:59:07 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 35731 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="32u276st3Jlj2kUU" Content-Disposition: inline --32u276st3Jlj2kUU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1) layer priority, currently it has: BBFILE_PRIORITY_gplv2 =3D "1" which is lower than oe-core with: BBFILE_PRIORITY_core =3D "5" so in order to use recipes from meta-gplv2 layer, user has to add couple PREFERRED_VERSIONS. Was this intended use for meta-gplv2? I can see some advantages of this (that the layer can be included without immediate side effects), but on the other hand why would anyone include this layer if he isn't deeply scared from (L)GPLv3 versions sneaking into the build? In our local builds I'm bumping the priority to 6 to resolve this. Alternatively we can add some conf/distro/gplv2-versions.inc file in meta-gplv2 so that people who want to use all available recipes in gplv2 compatible version can include it in their DISTRO. 2) branch for morty, currently the recipes aren't compatible with morty but with e.g. gnutls version added there it might be better option to share the gplv2 work there even when oe-core/morty contains most of these recipes as well. The recipes I had to modify to be compatible with morty are: https://github.com/shr-project/meta-gplv2/commits/jansa/morty 88d1052 coreutils: make it compatible with Yocto 2.2 Morty 5e08ac2 rsync: make it compatible with Yocto 2.2 Morty b33037f libiconv: make it compatible with Yocto 2.2 Morty --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --32u276st3Jlj2kUU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQRU+ejDffEzV2Je2oc3VSO3ZXaAHAUCWPpyngAKCRA3VSO3ZXaA HPZtAJ9HZEibfq0goiRxrPFkcuW5I9S5SgCeJ7dwxWD9JipJiKsOjFIik7ck4zI= =KrEo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --32u276st3Jlj2kUU--