From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C508E4C80A74 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:33:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2010 10:33:23 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,321,1288594800"; d="scan'208";a="685581705" Received: from doubt.jf.intel.com (HELO [10.24.4.158]) ([10.24.4.158]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2010 10:33:23 -0800 Message-ID: <4D0120ED.6060801@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:33:17 -0800 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "poky@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Kernel recipe naming X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:33:23 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I asked Richard about recipe naming convention this morning. We were pressed for time, but this is what I took away from the discussion. For typical packages, the filename typically looks like: package-name_version.bb For kernels this gets a bit more complex as it's useful to indicate the source of the kernel (linaro, omap, etc.) as well as the base kernel version (2.6.33) and Richard feels it would be nice to indicate in the filename what the underlying source repository is (_git). (I agree up to the last point, but for the source repository type, it seems to me if a user needs that much detail they can open the .bb file and check the SRC_URI.) So for a linux recipe, naming as follows seems to meet the above: linux-linaro_2.6.35+git.bb linux-linaro_2.6.37+git.bb I mentioned the -stable and -devel tags which he agreed could be useful, how to integrate them into the naming scheme wasn't clear to me though. Perhaps: linux-linaro-stable_2.6.35+git.bb linux-linaro-devel_2.6.37+git.bb Although to me, stable and 2.6.35 are redundant for this kernel, and something along the lines of the following is just as informative, and doesn't pollute the directory listings quite as much (and doesn't have to be renamed when stable rebases): linux-linaro_stable.bb linux-linaro_devel.bb In any of the above cases, the PV value doesn't seem to be disputed: PV=2.6.35+git${SRCPV} or possibly PV=2.6.35-linaro+git${SRCPV} Although including linaro in the PV is probably redundant as it's included in the PN and those are typically reported together IIRC $PN_$PV. Thoughts? -- Darren Hart Yocto Linux Kernel