From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SkaSB-00054L-Pg for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:37:39 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5TCQiBZ002036 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:44 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31331-10 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:39 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5TCQc5w002030 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:38 +0100 Message-ID: <1340972802.23146.153.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1340639719.23146.1.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [CONSOLIDATED PULL 00/17] Misc Fixes & Updates X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:37:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 14:14 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Richard Purdie > wrote: > >> qemu-git: Move to tip of git > >> qemu_git: set empty PACKAGECONFIG > > > > I have said no to this until the patch set gets updated. It will just > > get ignored/forgotten about otherwise. > > > > qemu git recipe as we have today is probably useless and its older > than 0.15 even and in any case set to D_P = "-1", forward porting > those gl patches is non trivial > intention of this recipe is to have support/fixes for machines that > had been since added and gl patches are x86 specific. > > I feel its a unnecessary restriction you are imposing for a recipe > which is not used by default even. Having one recipe that provides different sets of features with the same configuration is something I get concerned about. I'm putting on some pressure to the team to figure out how/when we're going to upgrade this. I'm hoping to have an answer on that soon. Cheers, Richard