From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Kepplinger Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:23:33 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] x11vnc: update to 0.9.14 In-Reply-To: References: <1493036541-26331-1-git-send-email-martin.kepplinger@ginzinger.com> <3cc20a82-673d-f87b-e5c6-0acc428cfb1c@ginzinger.com> <9cbb711a-6026-8a69-a6c6-85dc140e2e4c@imgtec.com> Message-ID: <341da979-e518-de72-4dee-8aa4a01912bd@ginzinger.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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 >>>>> --- >>>>> 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 > >