From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qcg7i-0008VW-LH for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:59:18 +0200 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qcg45-0003oj-Uz for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:55:33 +0200 Received: from ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl ([84.80.112.235]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:55:33 +0200 Received: from koen by ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:55:33 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:55:22 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4E0C4BF3.2050701@dresearch-fe.de> <1309428937.2551.107.camel@phil-desktop> <4E0DEA22.1040308@dresearch-fe.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 In-Reply-To: <4E0DEA22.1040308@dresearch-fe.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Any reasons not to use "newer" ppp? 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: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:59:18 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 01-07-11 17:39, Steffen Sledz schreef: > On 30.06.2011 12:15, Phil Blundell wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 12:12 +0200, Steffen Sledz wrote: >>> The current oe-dev master contains recipes for 2.4.4 and 2.4.5, >>> but both are DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1", so 2.4.3 is used by >>> default. >>> >>> We hit a problem in LCP open/close handling which is fixed in the >>> newer versions. >>> >>> Is there any reason *not* to go to 2.4.5? >> >> Oe-core is using 2.4.5 and presumably it works OK there. Judging >> from the commit messages there is no good reason for 2.4.5 to have >> been set D_P=-1 in oe.dev, so I think you should be safe to >> upgrade. > > While making some investingations in this i hit another problem. > > The recipe *ppp_2.4.5.bb* in *oe-core* contains lines like these: > ------------------>snip<------------------- FILES_${PN}-dbg += > "${libdir}/pppd/2.4.3/.debug" FILES_ppp-oa = > "/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/pppoatm.so" FILES_ppp-oe = > "/usr/sbin/pppoe-discovery /usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/rp-pppoe.so" > FILES_ppp-radius = "/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/radius.so > /usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/radattr.so /usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/radrealms.so" > FILES_ppp-winbind = "/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/winbind.so" > FILES_ppp-minconn = "/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/minconn.so" > FILES_ppp-password = "/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.3/pass*.so" > ------------------>snip<------------------- > > I can't imagine that it is intentionally to have hardcoded pathes > with *2.4.3* in it here. > > The ppp_2.4.5.bb recipe in oe-dev looks much cleaner. Is there > someone who feels as a maintainer of ppp and can do some housekeeping > here? The OE-core recipe also has a ton of QA errors being reported, so I wouldn't use that as an example of how to do things. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFODe3qMkyGM64RGpERAj5XAJ9cHJUSIcJ6sS6bqfNYSTYB6/KgSgCeNxZk i6REs8lKOlBywYBoXpzt+PA= =5yYU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----