From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37AEC021A0 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 05:48:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com (lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.235]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.45080.1739771322283108244 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2025 21:48:42 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="dkim: body hash did not verify" header.i=@ti.com header.s=ti-com-17Q1 header.b=udExgecy; spf=pass (domain: ti.com, ip: 198.47.23.235, mailfrom: y-abhilashchandra@ti.com) Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 51H5mdpq594268 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:48:39 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1739771319; bh=n2K3nhFDRVva54E0R4eYfStkkwK1OOsoPy8lzhWuGP4=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=udExgecyEF2h22NVa7RnMW/0TVBZxM/nh6ZJVr3YKbJ87kZ6dga32AKehQ0alSRLr xqc2j5pPTmqMWvFq6XNkhVRf7a1XEPsLT9qJVEW3GZuV/eVRSqhQA8OnsNyAZB2LSs lkgV7lXejjQSfuVYH6itgePZSN92bSQjJ2LGEN64= Received: from DLEE105.ent.ti.com (dlee105.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.35]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 51H5mdP2054126; Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:48:39 -0600 Received: from DLEE100.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.30) by DLEE105.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:48:38 -0600 Received: from lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.250) by DLEE100.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:48:38 -0600 Received: from [172.24.227.115] (abhilash-hp.dhcp.ti.com [172.24.227.115]) by lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 51H5mZgT071065; Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:48:36 -0600 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:18:35 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [meta-arago][master/scarthgap][PATCH] meta-arago-extras: v4l-utils: Add recipe for v1.28.1 To: Denys Dmytriyenko CC: , , , , , , References: <20250211075813.970579-1-y-abhilashchandra@ti.com> <20250211205111.GU21608@denix.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Yemike Abhilash Chandra In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed X-C2ProcessedOrg: 333ef613-75bf-4e12-a4b1-8e3623f5dcea Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com id 51H5mdpq594268 List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 05:48:47 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/message/15852 Hello everyone, I have provided my response regarding the concerns raised. Since I haven=E2=80=99t heard back, I wanted to check if you had any further thoughts. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Thanks and Regards, Yemike Abhilash Chandra. On 12/02/25 13:46, Yemike Abhilash Chandra wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 12/02/25 02:21, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 01:28:13PM +0530, Yemike Abhilash Chandra via=20 >> lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >>> An older recipe of v4l-utils (v1.26.1) is present in the meta-oe laye= r >>> for scarthgap. >>> >>> TI's 6.12 based kernel has backported multistream routing APIs from >>> upstream kernel, which requires v4l-utils to be the latest released >>> version (v1.28.1). >>> >>> Thus we override the recipe in this layer to the latest release of >>> v4l-utils. >> >> There are few issues with this... >> >> Do you really need to override the entire recipe? The old .bbappend wa= s >> applying a patch already - can you add a new patch to that and bump=20 >> SRCREV? >> >=20 > We are not only updating the SRCREV, but also moving to a newer branch > (stable-1.28), which is why we considered overriding the entire recipe. > This approach aligns with how we have handled previously, including > 6.1 timeline, where we followed a similar process.[1] >=20 > Given that the original recipe package still references an older versio= n, > do you suggest that we update the branch in the existing .bbappend, > even though the base recipe remains on an older version? >=20 > Please let me know if you want me to do that way. >=20 > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230525104036.2050245-1-j-luthra@ti.c= om/ >=20 > Thanks, > Yemike Abhilash Chandra >=20 >> If you do need to override the entire recipe, then you first need to=20 >> clearly >> articulate your reason in the commit log - wanting a newer commit=20 >> isn't such >> a reason >> >> Then you need to do it in 2 steps/patches - first you copy over the=20 >> existing >> recipe verbatim w/o any modifications, and in a separate step make you= r >> modifications >> >> Also, having own copy of an upstream recipe requires special attention= =20 >> to not >> violate the Yocto Project Compatible guidelines. I've explained this=20 >> recently >> in another thread here on the list >>