Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:

> On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:15:08 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >   would it not make more sense to have even the "dev" branch come
> > with the required version of bitbake embedded in the checkout?
> > or, failing that, just toss that incomplete bitbake directory
> > entirely?
>
> If you look into this directory it will only contain *.pyc files and
> I don't think it makes any sense to put bitbake into the
> OpenEmbedded repository.

  in a sense, i agree with that.  the problem is that the precedent
has already been set by having bitbake in the stable/2009 branch and,
based on the principle of least surprise, you shouldn't suddenly yank
something out of a branch if developers are used to seeing it there.

  for consistency, either bitbake should be included in an OE
checkout, or it shouldn't.  it shouldn't depend on which branch you're
working with.  that way lies confusion.

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

        Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
"Kernel Newbie Corner" column @ linux.com:          http://cli.gs/WG6WYX
========================================================================