[PATCH] gnomebase: add GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE variable

[PATCH] gnomebase: add GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE variable

[Saul Wold]

Upstream Gnome projects are starting to migrate to the .xz compress format,
so we need to add this to allow recipes to override the default of .bz2 as
the upstreams make the transition.

[YOCTO #2241]

Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>
---
 meta/classes/gnomebase.bbclass |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/gnomebase.bbclass b/meta/classes/gnomebase.bbclass
index a4209a0..80b78be 100644
--- a/meta/classes/gnomebase.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/gnomebase.bbclass
@@ -3,8 +3,9 @@ def gnome_verdir(v):
 	m = re.match("^([0-9]+)\.([0-9]+)", v)
 	return "%s.%s" % (m.group(1), m.group(2))
 
+GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE ?= "bz2"
 SECTION ?= "x11/gnome"
-SRC_URI = "${GNOME_MIRROR}/${BPN}/${@gnome_verdir("${PV}")}/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.bz2;name=archive"
+SRC_URI = "${GNOME_MIRROR}/${BPN}/${@gnome_verdir("${PV}")}/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.${GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE};name=archive"
 
 DEPENDS += "gnome-common"
 
-- 
1.7.7.6

Re: [PATCH] gnomebase: add GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE variable

[Burton, Ross]

On 6 June 2012 06:34, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Upstream Gnome projects are starting to migrate to the .xz compress format,
> so we need to add this to allow recipes to override the default of .bz2 as
> the upstreams make the transition.

Considering all future tarballs are going to be .xz, would it make
sense to default to .xz and fix the recipes where there isn't a .xz?

Ross

Re: [PATCH] gnomebase: add GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE variable

[Saul Wold]

On 06/06/2012 03:46 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 6 June 2012 06:34, Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>  wrote:
>> Upstream Gnome projects are starting to migrate to the .xz compress format,
>> so we need to add this to allow recipes to override the default of .bz2 as
>> the upstreams make the transition.
>
> Considering all future tarballs are going to be .xz, would it make
> sense to default to .xz and fix the recipes where there isn't a .xz?
>
I think until we get a predominant number of the gnome packages updated 
there is not much point in doing that as it would require extra recipe 
edits.  I think if we can do a batch update and then switch the default 
that would make more sense.  I will leave that up to the new gnome 
recipe maintainer Valentin.

Sau!

> Ross
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

Re: [PATCH] gnomebase: add GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE variable

[Koen Kooi]

Op 6 jun. 2012, om 17:38 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:

> On 06/06/2012 03:46 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> On 6 June 2012 06:34, Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>  wrote:
>>> Upstream Gnome projects are starting to migrate to the .xz compress format,
>>> so we need to add this to allow recipes to override the default of .bz2 as
>>> the upstreams make the transition.
>> 
>> Considering all future tarballs are going to be .xz, would it make
>> sense to default to .xz and fix the recipes where there isn't a .xz?
>> 
> I think until we get a predominant number of the gnome packages updated there is not much point in doing that as it would require extra recipe edits.  I think if we can do a batch update and then switch the default that would make more sense.  I will leave that up to the new gnome recipe maintainer Valentin.

When are the gnome recipes going to move out of OE-core?

Re: [PATCH] gnomebase: add GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE variable

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 19:51 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 6 jun. 2012, om 17:38 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On 06/06/2012 03:46 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> >> On 6 June 2012 06:34, Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>  wrote:
> >>> Upstream Gnome projects are starting to migrate to the .xz
> compress format,
> >>> so we need to add this to allow recipes to override the default
> of .bz2 as
> >>> the upstreams make the transition.
> >> 
> >> Considering all future tarballs are going to be .xz, would it make
> >> sense to default to .xz and fix the recipes where there isn't
> a .xz?
> >> 
> > I think until we get a predominant number of the gnome packages
> updated there is not much point in doing that as it would require
> extra recipe edits.  I think if we can do a batch update and then
> switch the default that would make more sense.  I will leave that up
> to the new gnome recipe maintainer Valentin.
>
> When are the gnome recipes going to move out of OE-core?

I keep seeing people mentioning their pet hates but nobody has put
together a reasonable proposal encompassing all the different elements
about how we could change the current set, thinking through the various
implications.

I will state once again for the record that we need enough in OE-Core
that we can build some working environments which are testable. I do not
want to end up in a position where we have a core which we can't
actually test. I also want the core to contain enough pieces to actually
be real world useful. I think the core today does that but if we start
pulling out every gnome piece or X11 then it would not be as real world
generally useful. I realise not everyone uses X11 but it does test a
significant set of the system, be it kernel framebuffer drivers, the
compiler etc.

I'm not thrilled to have sato there either but again, until we can come
up with a plan to replace it whilst still having a testable core, I
don't want to remove it.

Yes, I've said this before but since people keep asking the question,
I'll have to keep repeating myself.

Personally, I think there are bigger more pressing issues to deal with
too...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH] gnomebase: add GNOME_COMPRESS_TYPE variable

[Burton, Ross]

On 6 June 2012 16:38, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Considering all future tarballs are going to be .xz, would it make
>> sense to default to .xz and fix the recipes where there isn't a .xz?
>>
> I think until we get a predominant number of the gnome packages updated
> there is not much point in doing that as it would require extra recipe
> edits.  I think if we can do a batch update and then switch the default that
> would make more sense.  I will leave that up to the new gnome recipe
> maintainer Valentin.

Yeah, good point, agreed.

Ross