Re: [meta-mono] [PATCH 1/1] gtk-sharp: Updated to GTK# 2.12.21

[Alex J Lennon <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>]

On 27/02/2014 18:48, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2014 18:29:59 Alex J Lennon wrote:
>> On 27/02/2014 18:18, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>> PR values needn't match up between different distros. The point is they
>>> should get increased when a material change to the recipe's output
>>> happens; and this can happen for example when:
>>>
>>> * A class that the recipe inherits is changed
>>>
>>> * A dependency of the recipe that influences how the recipe is built gets
>>> changed
>>>
>>> * Some global configuration changed that affects how the recipe is built
>>> e.g. DISTRO_FEATURES
>>>
>>> * A bbappend is added or removed
>>>
>>> In all of these cases the recipe itself does not get changed at all -
>>> prior to the PR server we had to remember to manually bump PR in the
>>> affected recipes, or (more often) we'd forget to handle it properly
>>> altogether. With the PR server, PR bumps happen automatically in response
>>> to signatures changing, which is about as accurate an indicator as we can
>>> get as far as determining whether the output has changed, and certainly
>>> much less prone to mistakes.
>> OK so I can't download the source code to a distribution and built
>> identical, identically versioned packages to theirs? With something like
>> RPM wouldn't I expect to be able to download an RPM source package
>> and build an identical, versioned RPM from it?
> They'll always be "identical" as far as the material content goes, that's not
> in question here - we're just talking about the PR values. For the PR values
> it depends - which distro are we talking about? IIRC for example, SHR and
> Angstrom both make their PR servers available so that people's PR values
> will match up if they build it from source themselves.
>
> However, I think we're starting to head into territory where you have to
> ask who is maintaining this distro you are referring to. If you're making
> changes to how things get built, arguably it's now a derivative distro
> and you ought to be maintaining it yourself; at which point you shouldn't
> expect the PR values to match up. How else would you signify that you'd
> made the configuration change (or added your own patch, or ...) if it's
> someone else's distro that doesn't contain that change "upstream"?
>
>> Taking a slightly different tack, if I upgrade a recipe PV from 1.0.0 to
>> 2.0.0 to correspond to the upstream source versioning, and at that
>> time I remove PR and build some packages.
>>
>> Then a month later I realise I need something extra added to the
>> configuration options, which gives me a different output, what do I 
>> change to make sure the new package is versioned differently from
>> the old package? (i.e. presumably if the network service is
>> running it will handle it for me, but if it's not running then new
>> package will be versioned identically to my old package?)
> Yes. If you care about PR values (i.e. you're using packaging on the
> target) then you need to enable and use the PR server. If you do that,
> you don't need to make any additional change other than the
> configure option change you've already made - EXTRA_OECONF
> would presumably have been changed -> do_configure signature
> changes -> dependent task signatures change -> the PR value
> changes automatically.
>
>>>> I suppose the other question is, if I release a package of revision X,
>>>> then another which is up-rev'd' to Y as I made a change to the recipe
>>>> and so the NBPRS up-revs, then somebody comes back to me and tells me
>>>> they are having a problem with Xm then how do I link that rev X to the
>>>> specific commit that went to build it so I can audit ?
>>> The PR server doesn't track this - however, all of this information does
>>> go into buildhistory if you enable that.
>> Must look at that, yes.
> For reference:
>
> http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#maintaining-build-output-quality
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>

I've just noticed this which seems to usefully address some of my
questions; include for others who may come across the thread,

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1556

Excellent. So I can export my current set of AUTOPR values to a file,
give that to another development team in the handover, or test, or
whomever,
who can then import and build packages with the same version/name
(assuming that they're on another site or otherwise don't have access to
my PR
network service ). I can see that will obviate the need for an
inordinate number of conversations with the test team.