From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6629860684 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2016 09:58:05 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,410,1470726000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="884754718" Received: from alimonb-mobl1.zpn.intel.com (HELO [10.219.5.35]) ([10.219.5.35]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2016 09:58:04 -0700 To: Julien Gueytat , "Burton, Ross" References: <1475078770-26139-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com> <57EBF027.9000300@jgueytat.fr> From: =?UTF-8?B?QW7DrWJhbCBMaW3Ds24=?= Message-ID: <57EBF6CD.8040107@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:58:53 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57EBF027.9000300@jgueytat.fr> Cc: 00moses.alexander00@gmail.com, OE-core Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] db: Upgrade to 6.0.35 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: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:58:04 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 87630 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pSKpXEBBg5s1Bm5frA8SD0s8mvjx0UK2B" --pSKpXEBBg5s1Bm5frA8SD0s8mvjx0UK2B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 09/28/2016 11:30 AM, Julien Gueytat wrote: > Related to the db recipe. There are also the patches that needs to be > regenerated as the same patches are applied for the two current version= s. > At least on Ubuntu 16.06 the same patch can't be applied anymore on the= > two versions as the lines where to apply the patches differs too much. This is a quite strange, i'm wondering why can't be applied, i expect if a patch fails in configure/compile stages not at patch apply. Could you put here the error log please? alimon > >=20 > Le 28/09/2016 18:24, Burton, Ross a =C3=A9crit : >> >> On 28 September 2016 at 17:06, An=C3=ADbal Lim=C3=B3n >> > >> wrote: >> >> @@ -18,16 +18,15 @@ RCONFLICTS_${PN} =3D "db3" >> PR =3D "r1" >> >> >> Remove this PR please. >> >> # Note, when upgraded to 6.1.x, a patch in RPM will need to be >> removed to activate db 6.1 support. >> - >> -SRC_URI =3D "http://download.oracle.com/berkeley-db/db-${PV}.tar.= gz >> \ >> +SRC_URI =3D "http://distfiles.gentoo.org/distfiles/db-${PV}.tar.g= z >> \ >> >> >> What is distfiles.gentoo.org 's policy >> when db-6.0.36 is released? Could the tarball be deleted the day >> after we release? In general we've been either using >> snapshot.debian.org or pointing directly >> at the yoctoproject.org source mirror for >> tarballs we can't rely upon over time. >> >> Ross >> >> >=20 >=20 --pSKpXEBBg5s1Bm5frA8SD0s8mvjx0UK2B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJX6/bQAAoJEGJqcE9h3glgiEUQAI9+zzPcZ/dKibIORfbZP8jL NqWcvL3whDr4p4PXz45z1i1uO/T4F/KlP9dhcfWkHBTPkIzfrilUfXtqXrZiKHXL x7zmOJVsdLSIAfuUgKWkzFMWZIyrZQwruaKzgg+SFvi9n1ZYYk8UM7An8O6Xu7zP LYY2RFKlWW9sf8UDUJauRLW00fF2MHS6wSCs7I8aXw2/9N23zfKpp22pJ79tI7ra 2ZekmwJpT5nFnZKa1VezXRTBctXiG6gZT0NFQz1eryIquTI8+wgFX1Rb8tivZxdf 7eIdHlgmYMxspdkLmrn3jUywXgQVhae95NuVgzlp6LEIZURFJrzH2d993AY/h6YK tr8dzS5B3cpnNg+iYJN5XTmBYiS0M0CCuYMaPedrKjlGZfIlI1Buco9B9id+c/Ra JSLnCiFj3foudlFAKQMH1q+g4N0mz6C90POLI0w8KdGfAfO4uqgIJ1liK92ZYRb+ TBNWL32y7Czbqj/ga/L3kiDvZM4rCsHe1r+G9QRtJOlLhY9h058R1tEVTHwcfdCV Upug7iIONSS20EOZn9rcgaGocFYGTWsWHcayKbcaeHLOZ8gQ+VBdjL60TAF9jQQZ 2dn6fD0xNDM17FRSO7H5pgyQ58JOj3tKWob0lkD98YIpwuhrSvP0oYZcH7LV/QHh +7DHMf9TIF6yOvDQSZiR =AZpF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pSKpXEBBg5s1Bm5frA8SD0s8mvjx0UK2B--