From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail5.wrs.com (mail5.windriver.com [192.103.53.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04306FF25 for ; Fri, 20 May 2016 02:27:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail5.wrs.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u4K2Rr7b025450 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 19 May 2016 19:27:53 -0700 Received: from [128.224.162.214] (128.224.162.214) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Thu, 19 May 2016 19:27:52 -0700 To: Richard Purdie , Martin Jansa References: <573C0726.3040402@windriver.com> <573C21EE.8040104@windriver.com> <20160518092029.GA2579@jama> <573C365D.3070407@windriver.com> <20160518101556.GB2579@jama> <573D260D.2020909@windriver.com> <573D2EAF.9010602@windriver.com> <1463651156.4578.113.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <573D917C.4090002@windriver.com> <1463653077.4578.115.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Robert Yang Message-ID: <573E7626.8040605@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 10:27:50 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1463653077.4578.115.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: oe-core Subject: Re: PRServer's problem X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Fri, 20 May 2016 02:27:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/19/2016 06:17 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 18:12 +0800, Robert Yang wrote: >> On 05/19/2016 05:45 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> To be really clear, OE-Core will not have a different signature >>> policy >>> on release branches since that differing policy would break user >>> expectations and also wouldn't get tested apart from on the branch >>> so >>> we'd have less confidence it was working. >> >> Yes, I agree with this, I just used stable release as an example (big >> changes won't happen on a stable release). >> >>> >>> Users are free to set their own policies, the system was designed >>> to do >>> that. If WindRiver wants to have a much more permissive policy, I'm >>> more than happy for them to do so. >> >> Thanks, frankly speaking, not only WindRiver wants this. After cloud >> computing and virtualization gets hot, more and more users want to >> customize their own images (for saving disk space, memory and >> security >> reason), oe/yocto is very good at customizing images, so more and >> more people try to use it to build their own distros, where live >> upgrades becomes very important. > > I understand that. So are we going to get binary diff working? Its the Thanks everyone, it seems that this is the best way we have, I will try packagefeed-stability class. // Robert > only viable solution we have to the problem at the moment that I know > of. Randomly hacking bits of the signature generation isn't going to > help this unfortunately. > > Cheers, > > Richard > >