[Buildroot] [PATCH] x11vnc: update to 0.9.14

[Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@ginzinger.com>]

On 2017-04-24 21:47, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24-04-17 15:26, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017-04-24 14:55, Vicente Olivert Riera wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> On 24/04/17 13:27, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>>>> On 2017-04-24 14:22, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>>>>> This uses x11vnc's new upstream location, github, via https. Autoreconf is
>>>>> added, because it's really only a code snapshot release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@ginzinger.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  package/x11vnc/x11vnc.hash | 2 +-
>>>>>  package/x11vnc/x11vnc.mk   | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/package/x11vnc/x11vnc.hash b/package/x11vnc/x11vnc.hash
>>>>> index 5828b12..0da7765 100644
>>>>> --- a/package/x11vnc/x11vnc.hash
>>>>> +++ b/package/x11vnc/x11vnc.hash
>>>>> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
>>>>>  # Locally computed:
>>>>> -sha256  f6829f2e629667a5284de62b080b13126a0736499fe47cdb447aedb07a59f13b  x11vnc-0.9.13.tar.gz
>>>>> +sha256  45f87c5e4382988c73e8c7891ac2bfb45d8f9ce1196ae06651c84636684ea143  0.9.14.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's ugly to have 0.9.14.tar.gz. Is there a buildroot-style solution to
>>>> this?
> 
>  Yes, the github helper. If the link contains 'archive', it's for the github
> helper. If it contains 'releases', it's an uploaded tarball and you should use
> the expanded URL.

thanks.

> 
> 
>>> This is just fine, it's not the only package whose tarball name doesn't
>>> include the package name. Look for instance the mpv and yaffs2utils
>>> packages.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And other than that, is there a reason why x11vnc had not been updated
>>>> before? 0.9.14 is one and a half years old.
>>>
>>> Because nobody did it, probably. Anyway, the 0.9.14 is considered a
>>> bleeding edge development release (according to x11vnc's website) and
>>> even with that, as you said, is one and a half years old. Just
>>> wondering..., shouldn't be better to go with ToT (top of the tree) instead?
>>>
>>> X11VNC_VERSION = e47d922d4a4d980f8dce3e466c73dc4665e4bc01
>>> X11VNC_SITE = $(call github,LibVNC,x11vnc,$(X11VNC_VERSION))
>>>
>>
>> They don't seem to use development branches; While I think it would be
>> fine to use the master branch, just from my personal feeling I'd use the
>> tagged versions. Seems like the project is maintained and 0.9.15 somehow
>> on the horizon sometime sooner or later.
> 
>  We indeed prefer to stick to officially released versions when upstream has
> them. And we generally don't like to take releases that upstream considers a
> development/alpha/... release.
> 
>  Is there a reason why you need this bump?

Actually, no. There'd be a reason for me to have the next release. I
just thought to update in order to make it easier for 0.9.15. Let's
leave it as it is. I'll propose an update to 0.9.15 when released and
tested.

                          martin

> 
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
> 
>