From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [213.165.64.20] (helo=mail.gmx.net) by linuxtogo.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Krsqh-000739-Hz for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:22:59 +0200 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2008 11:22:40 -0000 Received: from BAA39f8.baa.pppool.de (EHLO [192.168.178.38]) [77.128.57.248] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 20 Oct 2008 13:22:40 +0200 X-Authenticated: #2218979 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19TnVx83xlTYRbshU1HJZUELaNQZlOuse4XK6bYKV cEz5HdomJarOXF Message-ID: <48FC69FE.2020300@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:22:38 +0200 From: Thomas Kunze User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <200810191847.04533.mickey@vanille-media.de> <1224438415.4235.266.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <200810200002.25673.mickey@vanille-media.de> <1224488828.4235.278.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> In-Reply-To: <1224488828.4235.278.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.57 Subject: Re: busybox recipe isappearances 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: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:22:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Phil Blundell wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 00:02 +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > >> Am Sunday 19 October 2008 19:46:55 schrieb Phil Blundell: >> >>> It's long been my view that we should just add newer ones and leave the >>> old ones alone. There's really no reason to delete old recipes and, >>> even if you check for PREFERRED_VERSIONs in the git tree, there is no >>> real way to know who else might be relying on the version you are about >>> to delete. >>> >> That's true, however I always feel the urge of cleaning up when I see dozens >> or recipes for the same software [besides the amount of increased parsing >> efforts if we really were to keep everything). I'd rather have the rough >> guideline of keeping major (trusted) releases. At the end of the day, >> everything is in the archives. >> > > If parsing time were to become a big issue then one could imagine ways > to solve that in bitbake. For example, one could arrange for a command > like "bitbake --disregard-old-versions" to parse all the files once, > identify those versions which are older than the PREFERRED ones (whether > set explicitly or automatically), and blacklist these old versions so > that they are never parsed again. The effect would be a bit like having > an automatically-maintained BBMASK though of course the implementation > would probably be slightly different. > > As for old versions being in the archives, that's true, but it seems > like one could easily get into a kind of ping-pong thing where you > delete an old version, I pull it out of the archives again, someone else > now notices this "old cruft" and deletes it again, and so on. I can > imagine that being frustrating for all parties. > This could be avoided if both parties would read the commit messages ;) > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel >