From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UFW0Y-0000eA-Uv for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:41:15 +0100 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2013 13:24:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,833,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="301151240" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.255.13.156]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2013 13:24:30 -0700 Message-ID: <513F8EFE.2030604@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:24:30 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Saul Wold References: <4293cea264609a122b9cc05831fe598fcb3ff677.1362702690.git.tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> <957507c1d36185cf5c6a1ac9b5781c3344d5a40d.1362702690.git.tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> <513E6EC3.7090905@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <513E6EC3.7090905@linux.intel.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Cc: tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf: rename perf_3.4 to perf 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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:41:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/11/2013 04:54 PM, Saul Wold wrote: > On 03/07/2013 04:39 PM, tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com wrote: >> From: Tom Zanussi >> >> There's nothing kernel-version-specific about the perf_3.4 recipe, so >> it's actually misnamed and misleading now that it also gets used with >> the 3.8 kernel. >> >> Since the recipe isn't tied to a specific PV, and simply uses >> whatever's in STAGING_KERNEL_DIR, there's no reason to add anything >> else either to the bare PN, so just use that as the recipe name. >> > This did not quite work out correctly, since the package name has now > gone backwards since the default PV for a recipe is 1.0 when nothing is > set on the recipe file name. > > Is there a way to sort this out such that it picks up an incrementing PV > from the kernel recipe? > > As it stands now, the PV has gone from 3.4 -> 1.0. > > Thanks for looking after this. This is what PE is for right? Sounds like we need an epoch bump. -- Darren hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel