From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Steffen Sledz <sledz@dresearch-fe.de>
Cc: openembedded-core <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: complex versioning scenario
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:35:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1395664516.24232.56.camel@ted> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5330220F.8050504@dresearch-fe.de>
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:16 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
> We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
>
> There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
>
> Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
>
> At the moment the recipes look like this:
>
>
> ------------ libfoo_git.bb -------------
> PR = "r7"
> PE = "2"
> SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
> PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
> ...
>
>
> ------------ app_git.bb ----------------
> DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..."
> PR = "r10"
> PE = "1"
> SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
> PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
> ...
>
>
> Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible
> changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
>
> In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package
> versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the
> library and the application package match each other.
It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide
whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes
have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something
major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we
can fix generically.
Cheers,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-24 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-24 12:16 complex versioning scenario Steffen Sledz
2014-03-24 12:35 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2014-03-24 12:49 ` Steffen Sledz
2014-03-24 12:53 ` Richard Purdie
2014-03-24 14:22 ` Steffen Sledz
2014-03-24 15:07 ` Richard Purdie
2014-03-24 15:15 ` Martin Jansa
2014-03-25 10:31 ` Steffen Sledz
2014-03-25 10:40 ` Richard Purdie
2014-03-25 15:03 ` Mark Hatle
2014-04-07 12:37 ` Steffen Sledz
2014-04-07 13:22 ` Steffen Sledz
2014-04-07 14:49 ` Richard Purdie
2014-04-08 12:33 ` Steffen Sledz
2014-04-08 17:20 ` Khem Raj
2014-04-08 18:58 ` Steffen Sledz
2014-04-08 21:32 ` Khem Raj
2014-03-24 18:00 ` Khem Raj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1395664516.24232.56.camel@ted \
--to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=sledz@dresearch-fe.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox