From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-vb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SYyAv-0004Hd-0W for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 13:31:49 +0200 Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so2076828vbb.6 for ; Mon, 28 May 2012 04:21:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=KZ/Dx97BQvAPDrNOZ0v4rTDf7DftJeXXF6rsCmH9o5g=; b=mANnheFf3fcrNAzEy5bWzLWq4P7ra6ZA3OmgXa5vUu8SzcGFtJi42TmBeWYnVc1IM6 ouN9F/ury2pqpnQXK6PbbHHLf3HtTFHBznSjWggd3u44pmPuorOjfkFLPgKuH0VmlInH ZNUNB9Ghr/c/ONpX+/YE0TgZFZXjfpJwYJxmyLavyUiLZsXQE+uE/cLNyD7dL5Yzdx43 wbVSMG5T8sC5tO0OlxPTyiWDmgf1vC2Pajr8VImEfRC6GqjvI/vwE+Nh4GvrlzKbUIR1 KXsYBGGNNkFgO3Tr9knOBbS5GNkes6eqA4AaniMPooGrNPVPYiY18tCIIpXs7u7xP+cG O5ag== Received: by 10.52.98.226 with SMTP id el2mr6925066vdb.119.1338204092371; Mon, 28 May 2012 04:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.170.186] ([89.121.200.106]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i19sm18451932vdt.18.2012.05.28.04.21.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 May 2012 04:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FC35FBA.2060200@gherzan.ro> Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:21:30 +0300 From: Andrei Gherzan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <4FC35FAD.7090505@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4FC35FAD.7090505@intel.com> X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5TCeXJvyrLDoaS81csawbT3Cvnh0LxmhNX25HuZ0/Osr3lzXo0xxOtm31P7SdblzQsG0v Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Package Updates 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: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:31:49 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060403090003000606050904" --------------060403090003000606050904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/28/2012 02:21 PM, Radu Moisan wrote: > > > On 05/28/2012 01:55 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> Hi, >> >> First, sorry for the thread breaking, I've just joined this list and I >> didn't get this mail. >> >> Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> dbus: Update to version 1.5.12 >>> First: how was this tested? > the only testing I've done so far is to ensure it build and then check > the version with dbus-daemon --version Dbus comes with a test suite. Running those should be a must. >>> Second: From the dbus website: >>> >>> The current stable branch is D-Bus 1.4.x. This is the recommended >>> version for most purposes. >>> The current development branch is D-Bus 1.5.x, which will lead to a >>> 1.6.x stable branch in future. >>> >>> Why are you deleting the stable branch based recipe and add one from >>> the development branch? >> The definition of stable and unstable in DBus isn't as hard and fast >> as you'd really like -- the 1.5.x cycle is very slow and mostly stable >> from a crashy point of view. >> >> I'd say there is a good rationale for having both 1.4.x (.20, so that >> also needs an upgrade) and 1.5.x in oe-core. The default should be >> 1.4 for obvious reasons (it's the stable release), and 1.5 should be >> there for people who need the improvements. In particular there has >> been a lot of work on performance, so anyone heavily using dbus (i.e. >> anything using Telepathy, which is where the improvements came from) >> should look at 1.5 because it will give a noticeable improvement on >> slower hardware. >> >> Ross > I suppose, then, I should add another recipe and support both. > However, can someone point out how can I make one of them default. DEFAULT_PREFERENCE @g --------------060403090003000606050904 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/28/2012 02:21 PM, Radu Moisan wrote:


On 05/28/2012 01:55 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: 
Hi,

First, sorry for the thread breaking, I've just joined this list and I
didn't get this mail.

Koen Kooi wrote:

 dbus: Update to version 1.5.12

First: how was this tested?
the only testing I've done so far is to ensure it build and then check the version with dbus-daemon --version

Dbus comes with a test suite. Running those should be a must.
Second: From the dbus website:

       The current stable branch is D-Bus 1.4.x. This is the recommended
version for most purposes.
       The current development branch is D-Bus 1.5.x, which will lead to a
1.6.x stable branch in future.

Why are you deleting the stable branch based recipe and add one from
the development branch?

The definition of stable and unstable in DBus isn't as hard and fast
as you'd really like -- the 1.5.x cycle is very slow and mostly stable
from a crashy point of view.

I'd say there is a good rationale for having both 1.4.x (.20, so that
also needs an upgrade) and 1.5.x in oe-core.  The default should be
1.4 for obvious reasons (it's the stable release), and 1.5 should be
there for people who need the improvements.  In particular there has
been a lot of work on performance, so anyone heavily using dbus (i.e.
anything using Telepathy, which is where the improvements came from)
should look at 1.5 because it will give a noticeable improvement on
slower hardware.

Ross
I suppose, then, I should add another recipe and support both. However, can someone point out how can I make one of them default.

DEFAULT_PREFERENCE

@g --------------060403090003000606050904--