From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D3E60621 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u969RHD7009855; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 10:27:17 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bPf7v8Z9H2wc; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 10:27:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u969RFNS009852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 Oct 2016 10:27:16 +0100 Message-ID: <1475746035.30475.515.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Martin Jansa , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 10:27:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20161006085422.GA2921@jama> References: <20161006085422.GA2921@jama> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: linux-yocto and linux-libc-headers are again going backwards X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 06 Oct 2016 09:27:18 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 10:54 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > Either use 4.7.99+4.8-rc4 like most other recipes do or at least > "4.8~rc4" > which might sort lower than "4.8" (but needs to be verified for all > packaging backends first). > > Ignoring all this completely results with what we can see in oe-core > now: > > ERROR: linux-libc-headers-4.8-r0 do_packagedata: QA Issue: Package > version for package linux-libc-headers-dbg went backwards which would > break package feeds from (0:4.8-rc4-r0.0 to 0:4.8-r0.0) > [version-going-backwards] Sorry, we did screw up there :(. Lots of moving pieces and its hard to catch/remember everything. I wish we knew for certain whether ~ works properly everywhere. A good case for some unittests I guess... Cheers, Richard