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 1SuU6C-0002bU-6G for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:51:52 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6QJeLta025211 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:40:21 +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 24456-04 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:40:17 +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 q6QJeDK7025202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:40:15 +0100 Message-ID: <1343331612.7600.19.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:40:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <969F26A8BAB325438E7EB80D3C3134FB16174E03@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <969F26A8BAB325438E7EB80D3C3134FB16174E03@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: Package recipes change proposal (system-wide) - name wise 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: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:51:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 07:23 +0000, Iorga, Cristian wrote: > For me, having the version number contained in the name of package recipe is a little bit puzzling. > For example: libpcre/libpcre_8.31.bb > > Is there a solid technical reason to not have it like this? > > libpcre/libpcre.bb > and inside the recipe to have a PV variable defined: > PV="8.31" FWIW, you can do that and it will just work, even today. Its just not the convention we've "grown up" with. > In that case, the upgrade/update process would not involve performing a "git move" operation. > In my opinion, this "git move" operation is something to be avoided, as it puzzles a little bit the versioning system and complicates the review process. > > Of course, some changes in the bitbake system would be involved, but I guess would not be too complicated. > Also, there will be a volume of work to be performed for changing the name of recipes and adding the PV variable inside the recipe. > But I guess that a script could solve that, followed by some manual review. The original idea was that updating to new versions was easy, it was a mv operation. The checksums have of course complicated this idea but the principle still applies. It also lets you see versions without having to view the files themselves which I know I personally find very useful. Also, as others have mentioned, git can detect move operations if you tell it to. Cheers, Richard