From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.145.245.197] (helo=mx01.dls.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LTLA7-0002N5-I0 for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:05:53 +0100 Received: from [209.242.7.188] (helo=[192.168.231.111]) by mx01.dls.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LTL2V-0003qa-VS for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:58:00 -0600 Message-ID: <49849F35.60509@dls.net> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:57:57 -0600 From: "Mike (mwester)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org References: <97574E2A-03E4-421C-8C29-21A6556D4F7E@ngndg.com> <498473E8.1010707@dls.net> <8145A528-65C8-4B2A-B7BB-D006779396B8@ngndg.com> In-Reply-To: <8145A528-65C8-4B2A-B7BB-D006779396B8@ngndg.com> Subject: Re: samba-3.2.5 missing 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: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:05:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim Ellis wrote: > Is it right that you will want every single point release of samba I add > then? You need to re-read my mail. It is NOT about point releases, it is the fact that you did NOT just do a point release; you added major new dependencies and then deleted the original recipe. It also has nothing to do with the desirability of the new recipe -- heck it doesn't matter if your recipe will solve global warming if it won't build. > working with as it works for all the distros I tried it on, however this > is a dev branch right? Occasional breakage happens sometimes, despite > best efforts. I hope you can see the benefit in the samba cleanup as it > was very messy and repetitive before. I acknowleged that. That's not the problem. And neither is a cleanup a problem. The problem is that you added major new dependencies in a new version and deleted the old one. It has nothing whatever to do with anything you're talking about -- it's really very simple! And don't quote OE guidelines at me either. Please grep for "_slugos" and other things in the recipes -- you'll find all the places where I've taken enormous pains to ensure that the changes I make do not risk anyone else's environment or builds. I'm not even asking *that much* -- I'm just asking that when someone commits a major new recipe, that they don't delete the old one -- so that I can go adjust my environment to build the old one until I can debug and troubleshoot why the new one won't work. There would be no problem at all if, in fact, your change was a minor update - but it wasn't! You added major new dependencies in a dot upgrade, and then deleted the original recipe. That combination of actions, together, is the problem. > I will probably be able to push changes discussed at some point today, > but after I'm happy they are all working. Normally if I get a blocker I > would try and talk to the maintainer and remove the package until its > fixed - I suggest you do that unless you are testing samba. Again, I can't follow what you're saying here. You want me to send an email, and then wait for you to argue with me via email, and finally commit a fix that may or may not work? That's what we're doing, right? But look - I've now spent more time in trying to get this all fixed, and in discussing this than it's worth. Really. So just forget it completely. I'll just commit my own samba-nokrb recipe (I recovered the old stuff from git; it's really quite easy when one is wide awake), and we can move on. I'll even put it in my own package directory to avoid any confusion. Thanks Mike (mwester)