* wanting to clarify patch mechanics
@ 2012-07-07 10:04 Robert P. J. Day
2012-07-07 10:15 ` Martin Jansa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2012-07-07 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: OE Core mailing list
not sure if there's a more comprehensive coverage of how OE patches
work than the brief discussion in the bitbake user manual, but i'd
like to clarify the variations just so i can document them.
here's what's in the bitbake manual that seems to be the entire
coverage of patches:
SRC_URI= "file://relativefile.patch"
SRC_URI= "file://relativefile.patch;this=ignored"
SRC_URI= "file:///Users/ich/very_important_software"
and so, to questions.
first, what is this "this=ignored"? does that still exist? is it
equivalent to "apply=no"? i don't see a single example of
"this=ignored" anywhere throughout oe-core, but i see a single example
of "apply=no" in net-tools_1.60-23.bb.
speaking of apply, it would seem that "apply=yes" is redundant, is
that correct? there are a couple dozen examples of that throughout
oe-core, mostly in the bash recipe file. is there anything subtle
about that parameter, or is it truly superfluous?
there's no mention of the "striplevel" parameter in the manual,
which i think would be useful, and that its default value is "1". and
i can see the warning that "pnum" is deprecated in favour of
"striplevel", but at the moment, i see not a single usage of "pnum"
and wonder if that warning can just be tossed and support for "pnum"
abandoned entirely. (there's not a single usage of "pnum" anywhere in
the entire yocto pull, either. just an observation.)
i think that's all i had for now. anything else about patches worth
writing down?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: wanting to clarify patch mechanics
2012-07-07 10:04 wanting to clarify patch mechanics Robert P. J. Day
@ 2012-07-07 10:15 ` Martin Jansa
2012-07-07 10:28 ` Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Martin Jansa @ 2012-07-07 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3740 bytes --]
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 06:04:07AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> not sure if there's a more comprehensive coverage of how OE patches
> work than the brief discussion in the bitbake user manual, but i'd
> like to clarify the variations just so i can document them.
>
> here's what's in the bitbake manual that seems to be the entire
> coverage of patches:
>
> SRC_URI= "file://relativefile.patch"
> SRC_URI= "file://relativefile.patch;this=ignored"
> SRC_URI= "file:///Users/ich/very_important_software"
>
> and so, to questions.
>
> first, what is this "this=ignored"? does that still exist? is it
> equivalent to "apply=no"? i don't see a single example of
> "this=ignored" anywhere throughout oe-core, but i see a single example
> of "apply=no" in net-tools_1.60-23.bb.
>
> speaking of apply, it would seem that "apply=yes" is redundant, is
> that correct? there are a couple dozen examples of that throughout
> oe-core, mostly in the bash recipe file. is there anything subtle
> about that parameter, or is it truly superfluous?
apply=yes is default for *.patch and .diff, for files with other
extension it's still needed (e.g. those entries in bash)
so there is only a few redundant usages in oe-core:
meta/recipes-connectivity/portmap/portmap.inc: file://make.patch;apply=yes"
meta/recipes-core/eggdbus/eggdbus_0.6.bb: file://gtk-doc.patch;apply=yes \
meta/recipes-core/eggdbus/eggdbus_0.6.bb: file://marshal.patch;apply=yes \
meta/recipes-graphics/libxsettings-client/libxsettings-client_0.10.bb: file://link-x11.patch;apply=yes \
meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-proto/calibrateproto_git.bb: file://fix.patch;apply=yes"
meta/recipes-sato/leafpad/leafpad_0.8.18.1.bb:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://owl-menu.patch;apply=yes "
meta/recipes-sato/pimlico/contacts.inc:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://contacts-owl-window-menu.patch;apply=yes "
meta/recipes-sato/pimlico/dates.inc:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://dates-owl-window-menu.patch;apply=yes "
meta/recipes-sato/settings-daemon/settings-daemon_git.bb: file://addsoundkeys.patch;apply=yes \
meta/recipes-support/libcroco/libcroco_0.6.3.bb:SRC_URI_append = " file://croco.patch;apply=yes \
some devs cleanup those when doing upgrades.. if it bothers you enough
you can send patch removing those...
> there's no mention of the "striplevel" parameter in the manual,
> which i think would be useful, and that its default value is "1". and
> i can see the warning that "pnum" is deprecated in favour of
> "striplevel", but at the moment, i see not a single usage of "pnum"
> and wonder if that warning can just be tossed and support for "pnum"
> abandoned entirely. (there's not a single usage of "pnum" anywhere in
> the entire yocto pull, either. just an observation.)
pnum is still used e.g. in meta-oe vim recipe.
Cheers,
>
>
> i think that's all i had for now. anything else about patches worth
> writing down?
>
> rday
>
> --
>
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
> http://crashcourse.ca
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
> LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
> ========================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: wanting to clarify patch mechanics
2012-07-07 10:15 ` Martin Jansa
@ 2012-07-07 10:28 ` Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2012-07-07 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 06:04:07AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > speaking of apply, it would seem that "apply=yes" is redundant, is
> > that correct? there are a couple dozen examples of that throughout
> > oe-core, mostly in the bash recipe file. is there anything subtle
> > about that parameter, or is it truly superfluous?
>
> apply=yes is default for *.patch and .diff, for files with other
> extension it's still needed (e.g. those entries in bash)
ah, that's useful to know, thanks.
> so there is only a few redundant usages in oe-core:
> meta/recipes-connectivity/portmap/portmap.inc: file://make.patch;apply=yes"
> meta/recipes-core/eggdbus/eggdbus_0.6.bb: file://gtk-doc.patch;apply=yes \
> meta/recipes-core/eggdbus/eggdbus_0.6.bb: file://marshal.patch;apply=yes \
> meta/recipes-graphics/libxsettings-client/libxsettings-client_0.10.bb: file://link-x11.patch;apply=yes \
> meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-proto/calibrateproto_git.bb: file://fix.patch;apply=yes"
> meta/recipes-sato/leafpad/leafpad_0.8.18.1.bb:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://owl-menu.patch;apply=yes "
> meta/recipes-sato/pimlico/contacts.inc:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://contacts-owl-window-menu.patch;apply=yes "
> meta/recipes-sato/pimlico/dates.inc:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://dates-owl-window-menu.patch;apply=yes "
> meta/recipes-sato/settings-daemon/settings-daemon_git.bb: file://addsoundkeys.patch;apply=yes \
> meta/recipes-support/libcroco/libcroco_0.6.3.bb:SRC_URI_append = " file://croco.patch;apply=yes \
>
> some devs cleanup those when doing upgrades.. if it bothers you enough
> you can send patch removing those...
it didn't really bother me so much as i just wanted to make sure it
didn't represent something subtle that changed the expected behaviour,
and your earlier explanation clarified that. i might send a patch
along later. thanks for the clarification.
today's going to be a very oe-oriented day so expect more nitpicking
pedantry.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-07 10:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-07-07 10:04 wanting to clarify patch mechanics Robert P. J. Day
2012-07-07 10:15 ` Martin Jansa
2012-07-07 10:28 ` Robert P. J. Day
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox