Re: [PATCH] mtd-utils: upgrade 2.0.2 -> 2.1.0

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:26:06PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 18:23 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:33:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:41:52PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > * Now requires openssl:
> > > > > In file included from ../git/ubifs-
> > > > > utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.c:25:
> > > > > ../git/ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs.ubifs.h:49:10: fatal error:
> > > > > openssl/rand.h: No such file or directory
> > > > >  #include <openssl/rand.h>
> > > > >           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > compilation terminated.
> > > > > Makefile:3457: recipe for target 'ubifs-
> > > > > utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o' failed
> > > > > make: *** [ubifs-utils/mkfs.ubifs/mkfs_ubifs-mkfs.ubifs.o]
> > > > > Error 1
> > > > ...
> > > > -DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux"
> > > > +DEPENDS = "zlib e2fsprogs util-linux openssl"
> > > 
> > > It doesn't (and should not) require it unconditionally.
> > > 
> > > Please backport "mkfs.ubifs: fix build without openssl" from
> > > upstream git instead.
> > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > -PV = "2.0.2+${SRCPV}"
> > > > +PV = "2.1.0+${SRCPV}"
> > > > ...
> > > 
> > > This was already wrong before but now is an opportunity to fix:
> > > Since this is exactly the release, it should be
> > >   PV = "2.1.0"
> > 
> > So, which is it? Do you want it to be exactly the release, or do you
> > want to start backporting fixes from after the release? It doesn't
> > seem to be a critical issue to warrant backporting, in my opinion.
> 
> openssl is not a light dependency and is one I'd prefer not to be
> adding unless we really need it. Things like this may look/sound
> trivial but they inflate build times, image sizes and build complexity.
> 
> I'd probably prefer to have the 2.1.0 with a backported patch in this
> case if you're after an opinion :)

Luckily, the fix for this was right in the next commit after the release, so I 
opted to bump SRCREV by one, instead of carrying a local patch. Just sent v2.

-- 
Denys