Re: [PATCH 00/12] Recipe upgrades, fixes and additions

[Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com>]

On 15/11/11 13:38, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 11:03 -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
>> On 11/08/2011 06:18 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 16:10 -0800, Joshua Lock wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Here's a series of patches I developed whilst trying to play around with some
>>>> Clutter based software.
>>>>
>>>> The interesting pieces may be:
>>>> Clutter 1.8 series recipes - do we want/need to keep clutter 1.6 around?
>>>> Are we OK with continuing to namespace the clutter recipes by clutter
>>>> version?
>>>
>>> Yes, I think this makes sense.
>>
>> Why do we want to continue the clutter the namespace with version 
>> numbers?  Was this not for a past issue with mis-matched API/ABI?
>>
>> If that problem is solved, then next remove that version info.
> 
> Clutter produces libraries with a very specific namespace so you can
> parallel install clutter 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8. Applications compile against
> a given version of the library.
> 
> Having the major lib version as part of the package name therefore makes
> sense. There aren't a lot of projects that do this but this one does and
> it continues to make sense to namespace it accordingly.

With this knowledge "in hand" I've just re-read the 1.8 release notes[1]
and, for better or for worse, this is no longer the case:

"
* This version is API and ABI compatible with the current stable release
of Clutter.
* Installing the contents of this release will overwrite the files from
the installation of the current release of Clutter.
"

For point 1 I'd added a patch to PROVIDES = "clutter-1.6" but I'm not
sure what makes sense in the context of point 2.

Cheers,
Joshua

1.
http://www.clutter-project.org/blogs/archive/2011-09/clutter-1.8.0-stable-release
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre