From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sysmocom.de ([78.46.147.233] helo=mail.sysmocom.de) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TwUHJ-0008HQ-5w for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:00:12 +0100 Received: from sangmingze-mail.local (91-66-230-199-dynip.superkabel.de [91.66.230.199]) by mail.sysmocom.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 546FB2543431; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:58:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ich by sangmingze-mail.local with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TwU2M-0005Ql-Ho; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:44:26 +0100 Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:44:26 +0100 From: Holger Hans Peter Freyther To: Saul Wold Message-ID: <20130119084426.GH15126@xiaoyu.lan> References: <1358519642-31022-1-git-send-email-holger@moiji-mobile.com> <50F993A7.30308@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <50F993A7.30308@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] archiver.bbclass: Archive the native builds as well X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:00:14 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:25:43AM -0800, Saul Wold wrote: > > I understand what the issue is here, but I am not sure this is the > right solution. This will likely bring in way more than is wanted or > needed for source archiving. > > What's needed from the opkg-utils-native? IANAL so let me say it is company/personal policy to release more than would be the minimumm specially to avoid corner cases like we have with gcc/libgcc. I think there are some issues.. a.) Missing option to tarball everything. I can prepare a patch for that. b.) At least libgcc sources not being present. c.) How can I get back to compliance? I would have to use something like the old DISTRO_PR after I patched the archiver class and rebuild everything. How can this be handled today? I have installations in the field that I want to upgrade, so the PR of each package should increase. d.) Verify that for the meta-toolchain target the necessary GCC sources are archived. cheers holger PS: Re-sent from the right address