Re: SRCPV migration

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 16-11-09 10:39, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 09:38 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> If something needs a PE bump, make sure you do it properly and bump PE
>> on the non scm fetched entries as well. For the kernel I wouldn't bump
>> PE, since too many machines can use different kernel recipes.
>>
>> And can someone tell me how SRCPV works when you have multiple
>> buildmachines across the world, how does one keep SRCPV in sync between
>> all those machines?
>>
>> How does SRCPV work when you have recipes for 1.2+gitrfoo, 1.3+gitrbar, etc?
>
> They'd become 1.2+LOCALBUILDREV+gitrfoo and 1.3+LOCALBUILDREV+gitrfoo.
>
>> IOW: will it create more work for me (like the proposed checksums
>> changes) instead of making things easier?
>
> SRCPV solves one particular set of bugs where local build revisions were
> only injected into revisions part of the time. This change makes things
> more consistent and predicable in that its always injected.
>
> Nobody has ever written code to share the bitbake persistent data
> between machines. It shouldn't be that hard with some kind of database
> server but nobody has done it.
>
> It doesn't really change the position for Angstrom as I understand it
> though as you don't (can't) use these packages now due to the multiple
> build servers and that position hasn't changed :/.

So basically every recipe that is using SRCPV in PV or PR is unsuitable 
to be put in online feeds. That should be enough to stop the SRCPV merge 
into .dev.

regards,

Koen