disapprove 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4

disapprove 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4

[Rolf Leggewie]

Koen,

may I suggest that instead of screaming "bogus" at the top of your lungs 
all the time and thus discrediting your fellow contributors' work you 
start pitching in with quality assurance?  There sure are an awful lot 
of stale bugs and unbuildable stuff in OE.

I am well aware that COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the definition of fso-image 
is not the best solution.  At the current state of affairs, it is 
correct though.  The image relies on $XSERVER which is not defined for 
all machines in OE.  Those machines are incompatible with that image 
definition.

You're heartily invited to help fix OE to have a sane default for 
$XSERVER for *all* machines.  I've started work on this but have not yet 
finished.  Until that is done, removing compatible machine from the 
image definition is a step backwards which is why I have disapproved 
commit 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4.

Regards

Rolf

Re: disapprove 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Am Dienstag 26 August 2008 13:22:32 schrieb Rolf Leggewie:
> Koen,
>
> may I suggest that instead of screaming "bogus" at the top of your lungs
> all the time and thus discrediting your fellow contributors' work you
> start pitching in with quality assurance?  There sure are an awful lot
> of stale bugs and unbuildable stuff in OE.
>
> I am well aware that COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the definition of fso-image
> is not the best solution.  At the current state of affairs, it is
> correct though.  The image relies on $XSERVER which is not defined for
> all machines in OE.  Those machines are incompatible with that image
> definition.
>
> You're heartily invited to help fix OE to have a sane default for
> $XSERVER for *all* machines.  I've started work on this but have not yet
> finished.  Until that is done, removing compatible machine from the
> image definition is a step backwards which is why I have disapproved
> commit 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4.

Well, in this case I agree with Koen.  COMPATIBLE_MACHINE should never appear 
in an image recipe, e.g. I used to happily build fso-image for the Motorola 
EZX series and now i can no longer.

Lets fix the XServer issue instead.

-- 
:M:

Re: disapprove 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4

[Koen Kooi]

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> Am Dienstag 26 August 2008 13:22:32 schrieb Rolf Leggewie:
>> Koen,
>>
>> may I suggest that instead of screaming "bogus" at the top of your lungs
>> all the time and thus discrediting your fellow contributors' work you
>> start pitching in with quality assurance?  There sure are an awful lot
>> of stale bugs and unbuildable stuff in OE.
>>
>> I am well aware that COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the definition of fso-image
>> is not the best solution.  At the current state of affairs, it is
>> correct though.  The image relies on $XSERVER which is not defined for
>> all machines in OE.  Those machines are incompatible with that image
>> definition.
>>
>> You're heartily invited to help fix OE to have a sane default for
>> $XSERVER for *all* machines.  I've started work on this but have not yet
>> finished.  Until that is done, removing compatible machine from the
>> image definition is a step backwards which is why I have disapproved
>> commit 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4.
>
> Well, in this case I agree with Koen.  COMPATIBLE_MACHINE should never appear
> in an image recipe, e.g. I used to happily build fso-image for the Motorola
> EZX series and now i can no longer.
>
> Lets fix the XServer issue instead.

If you look at other image recipes using $XSERVER you'll notice they all 
have a weak assignment to fbdev on top.

The other smartphone people (magician, htc-universal, blueangel, etc) 
were wondering why they couldn't build fso-image anymore.

Re: disapprove 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4

[Rolf Leggewie]

Koen Kooi wrote:
> If you look at other image recipes using $XSERVER you'll notice they all 
> have a weak assignment to fbdev on top.

Which is the wrong place to do this.  Work has been started to try and 
fix all this "right".

> The other smartphone people (magician, htc-universal, blueangel, etc) 
> were wondering why they couldn't build fso-image anymore.

Understood.  IMHO, until things have been fixed properly, it would have 
been "more correct" to add other machines that have a correct XSERVER 
definition to COMPATIBLE_MACHINE than to drop the line.  I agree it's 
kind of silly and temporary work, so let's all hold our breath for a few 
days until the XSERVER situation has been straightened out.

Re: disapprove 9cdbd45b5ff507c6e00fc91c08ec5e17929302f4

[Rolf Leggewie]

Koen,

since you went to the trouble of calling my work* (which was an 
improvement over the current inconsistency, although an imperfect one, I 
agree) bogus *again* I can only assume that you either don't value my 
work or are utterly incapable of working together.  I assume it's both. 
  As I said, I had started work on fixing this correctly, but I will 
drop the ball now and I don't assume you will lower yourself to do it. 
I think I'll also abstain from OE QA work for a while.  I assume you'll 
be relieved to see none of my "bogus" enter your shiny repo.

Greetz

the respect mafia