From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [64.235.106.9] (helo=astoria.ccjclearline.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MUh8o-0000EJ-Q4 for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:18:23 +0200 Received: from [12.42.230.2] (helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MUgum-0000FL-2l for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:03:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:01:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <200907251452.41374.holger+oe@freyther.de> Message-ID: References: <200907251452.41374.holger+oe@freyther.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:18:24 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 ========================================================================