From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-bw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RGtwG-0000Gn-JN for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:49:44 +0200 Received: by bkat8 with SMTP id t8so3825070bka.6 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:43:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/yYTTAJwCFlJKA3HnknhhZMMqgSJGAijNGJB3vGoYgg=; b=QxSRgpN/uA3YFKAIFgnqrUyQOPst9fKEpR+wcY63F2Fh4EWD+DBroou2v06iMP+lbK OyIn7n94UulpdYOTi2cBI1pFCUJNZ8a5FDD3/gr29j5OHPl5w/1Vx73t7/IgsXt4FgNw RGVZv7UWAvdRF3XS7BQeCuF6xW7RNy71NlsnU= Received: by 10.204.7.198 with SMTP id e6mr8284182bke.80.1319121398797; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([94.230.152.246]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u18sm10041329bkn.6.2011.10.20.07.36.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:36:31 +0200 From: Martin Jansa To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Message-ID: <20111020143631.GJ3522@jama.jama.net> References: <9DA5872FEF993D41B7173F58FCF6BE94E2F42F6A@orsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com> <158EAB1C-0C40-4C5B-B47A-A4B8C90A2055@dominion.thruhere.net> <1319042998.22985.257.camel@phil-desktop> <4E9F018D.7030703@intel.com> <4E9F0CCF.3070404@intel.com> <4E9F5E5A.6040002@intel.com> <1319120752.2410.34.camel@ted> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1319120752.2410.34.camel@ted> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [CONSOLIDATED PULL 14/16] distro-tracking: update data for some toolchain recipes 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, 20 Oct 2011 14:49:44 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 11328 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Ah9ph+G2cWRpKogL" Content-Disposition: inline --Ah9ph+G2cWRpKogL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 03:25:52PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 16:33 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > > On 10/19/2011 12:00 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 16:30, Khem Raj wrote: > > > ... > > >>>>> Many upstreams we can't track if updates are required automagical= ly, so > > >>>>> we > > >>>>> need a place to record when the last manual check was, also possi= ble > > >>>>> reasons > > >>>>> why we should not update to newer versions, ... > > >> > > >> hmm manual check means it has to be done manually is there any thing > > >> that needs it ? > > >> > > >> I think unless they are distro specific which seems not since they a= re > > >> in oe-core > > >> they could exist in recipes thats my opinion. > > > > > > I agree that this should be put into the recipes. Besides this allows > > > for checking if it was updated when the version has been updated. > > > > > > If done right, when updating the version this data will be updated > > > together. I see no change in the amount of changes. > > > > > > A plus of this choice is it will be more difficult to forget to update > > > that info. This happened in last qt update for an example. > > > > >=20 > > This may need to be something that the TSC brings up, possibly we can= =20 > > talk about it in Prague next week. >=20 > So just to give some background here, the information in those files was > added by Yocto people to give some idea of the update status of various > recipes. This included when the version was last checked/updated for > recipes which we can't automate that process for, when certain cleanup > checks were made, what the general state of the recipe was and who on > the Yocto team was specifically looking after given recipes. >=20 > When it was discussed, some of it was Yocto specific, some of it wasn't > and popular opinion was against it going into the recipes themselves. I > was ok with that given we have the pn- overrides and can handle the > problem that way just fine. >=20 > OE-Core happened and we kept the data with OE-Core at least for now. We > have several options: >=20 > a) Keep the data where it is > b) Merge the data into the recipes > c) Move the data out of OE-Core >=20 > Since a lot of that data is fairly Yocto process specific, it may make > sense to move it over to meta-yocto... I don't like "global" files where many people should maintain their info and it's so easy to forgot when it's somewhere else then real changes (like it was with checksums.ini and sane-src*.ini). So I vote for b) Merge the data into the recipes, only problem with this is that if we have 2 versions of foo (foo_1.0.bb, foo_git.bb) without any foo.inc, will we create foo.inc just for distro-tracking info? Maybe we should and move at least DESCRIPTION and similar variables too. c) moving it to meta-yocto will probably make distro-tracking info even more outdated as sometimes different people then who did upgrade in oe-core will have to update distro-tracking info in this layer (this is also the case now sometimes, but with distro-tracking info in recipe we can try better to update it with upgrades). Regards, --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --Ah9ph+G2cWRpKogL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk6gMe8ACgkQN1Ujt2V2gBywogCgicEU9TViGNf9961LiU8LxV49 jCoAnRk49VRN/1MArqgTY5MwSXGANPdB =OKII -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Ah9ph+G2cWRpKogL--