From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 5691FE00C5B; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:36:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.220.43 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (net147[at]gmail.com) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC322E00927 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pablk4 with SMTP id lk4so140320589pab.3 for ; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 18:36:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Z4WYBUwsLWUqgEVH4qwD731YkKCBpbx24LgbIni+naM=; b=PgwU6MUtzUQyM+2R7iEdHMikdI1Dg1bXDs1zmsmdeCXKSKyiM+kxuPd97oZ/iIGlWr lJBgEARwgGNNzacwCf76fbCMZk4ypxq0QZOQUsP4NfeO0uEDsnY/P4UY6j8Q+TILSa6j 5vjgRALPfdW/9zsOMytBQTZuA90QDaulMUiRtn+C+XgS9EXFLifdI+6L3jPlpObOVoXm yO2K1OJmiauAJKQL5cud/QiytgrCPwnHvyNNLeclBErRdywUAXuvfMlz0OCIa4I1LfjG 4IMk7/UQg4EBFx8B7mUTQRCYPZFw/+jX5+2uMkMNhslrDsvqpEuem93x2BHAk3NZL7yA gHxA== X-Received: by 10.68.242.2 with SMTP id wm2mr15374777pbc.31.1443922603085; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 18:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (60-242-179-244.static.tpgi.com.au. [60.242.179.244]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rx8sm19586799pbb.90.2015.10.03.18.36.40 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 03 Oct 2015 18:36:42 -0700 (PDT) To: Andrei Gherzan References: <1440231935-11042-1-git-send-email-net147@gmail.com> <561067E2.5020807@gmail.com> <20151004000419.GA28229@resin> <56107E22.3050701@gmail.com> From: Jonathan Liu Message-ID: <561082A6.3090503@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 12:36:38 +1100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56107E22.3050701@gmail.com> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH v2] linux-raspberrypi.inc: use SRCPV instead of SRCREV for PV X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 01:36:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/10/2015 12:17 PM, Jonathan Liu wrote: > On 4/10/2015 11:04 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 10:42:26AM +1100, Jonathan Liu wrote: >>> On 22/08/2015 6:25 PM, Jonathan Liu wrote: >>>> SRCPV is intended to be used by PV. Using SRCREV for PV is incorrect. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Liu >>>> --- >>>> recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi.inc | 3 ++- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi.inc >>>> b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi.inc >>>> index d60a3e9..ef98421 100644 >>>> --- a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi.inc >>>> +++ b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi.inc >>>> @@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ SRC_URI += " \ >>>> COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "raspberrypi" >>>> -PV = "${LINUX_VERSION}+git${SRCREV}" >>>> +PV = "${LINUX_VERSION}+git${SRCPV}" >>>> +PR = "r1" >> Why would you want to bump PR? It will eventually end up being the >> same value, >> right? The PV change makes sense and is a good idea. And even if it's >> not the >> same value will trigger a new build cause PV will change. > Without bumping PR, the version went backwards for me. > The v1 patch posted earlier on the ML doesn't bump PR if you prefer that. Now that I think about, bumping PR doesn't make any sense at all as it is after the git revision. If anything, PE should be bumped to 1. Should I bump PE instead or just go with v1 patch? Regards, Jonathan