From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com (mail-it0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B120971B45 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:29:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id c7so66576632itd.1 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 06:29:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LJzpGiU4kLIqbOy92nCYULk2WTVDp45oi75uvIt64Vk=; b=ltHczyzxWkRMqliRdQVi9QjLWGrl2H5DlxeBYAlvMVZNpdsN598/peeiJKPC11a88x IJ8TXUhmQDMaBtK5oS1nbmPGW+VXZFXsH5rDjkhHfqyJNm0hWczTVbWnq6uWqYb+P6ff 7kJ13oEW1topYbHSC3X7UBXQ5fg+2DyQyxwsqQFAAW8qvJS/fX4d/dfIGozeEP7BzCOW oryPTwFJPPRwkuCDGbvkDAbjFEUSgsZyS5UgAIvDdt7DVWOEIGhJDPnZlbt3tL4wn6jv gCq+R3WD20Kul8uxsO3GlLYgoVToHeCeiaBAHPsqp8ZAXDJhLhmPSP2An0jPBu5EZml0 rrBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LJzpGiU4kLIqbOy92nCYULk2WTVDp45oi75uvIt64Vk=; b=YKsWa7rOo4ZI4K3Hmbm3NEgXDahjmguOApW+pgCHU5HPwwVQtCdqp59MlXKjkjo726 /i+Lt4gJnZIL2D1I0YtsQfjeV3ghYuQmD1iAc7b8g69LUv2x+7hDQAa4/9+CSLVvIaIi 5p/qO/dxfuUNnS1VjnoAmbPiZtXMEcewx/7myXUsBQCdWKCfp1m/YCGNuFo3HNAKShb2 +68VsA6cFSTihSY4tsEQahBsrvTqIgyzNRiMEE06WoII+3b4l6JeLR3hTZCpZ/0bSqT0 zD6O8h9UjyjboSwJs7TBbeXWosNeP1vjkv8+8GdV+537fwJwkHyQ4Cvw0Uuq3d2Vf1/p KJpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJwUc3cptBB1RJR3rZeQ0snXtyyM0s8gOgwU5/TwwoSynmzyVsWva9tw3QMZlHBwIZc X-Received: by 10.36.108.205 with SMTP id w196mr14336604itb.96.1485181785623; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 06:29:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8FC12.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.252.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x26sm4618920ita.11.2017.01.23.06.29.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 06:29:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1485181781.20333.39.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Alexander Kanavin Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:29:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <8c0f5529-3dbb-1049-dc59-0cb368e04359@linux.intel.com> References: <1484935979-328-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com> <1484941467.20333.3.camel@intel.com> <8c0f5529-3dbb-1049-dc59-0cb368e04359@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] qemu: Upgrade to 2.7.1 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: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:29:46 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 16:01 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 01/20/2017 09:44 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > In contrast to Alexander, I would also keep > > http://wiki.qemu-project.org/download/${BP}.tar.bz2 in qemu_2.7.1.bb > > with SRC_URI =+ because then there can be a qemu_git.bb with a different > > URL than the one above. > > I would discourage creation of such separate _git recipes, unless there > is a clear benefit to the whole of oe-core. They are almost always > untested and neglected, and eventually removed because they're outdated > and broken and no one cares. I wasn't suggesting to add one, just using the possibility that one might want to add one as the rationale for keeping the download URL for the tarball out of the .inc file. It's all rather subjective and hinges on the likelihood of adding a _git.bb (don't include it in the .inc) vs. adding more than one versioned .bb (then including the common download in the .inc reduces duplication). -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.