Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 6/6] lttng-modules: backport patches from 2.12.x to fix 5.4.64+ and 5.8.9+ builds

["Richard Purdie" <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 07:33 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 1:44 AM Jens Rehsack <rehsack@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Am 15.09.2020 um 00:34 schrieb Bruce Ashfield <
> > > bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>:
> > > 
> > > From: Jens Rehsack <sno@netbsd.org>
> > > 
> > > Backporting the 10 patches since the lttng 2.12.2 release. We'll
> > > drop
> > > them once .3 is released, but for now, we need the fixes to build
> > 
> > Yet another question: there is a stable-2.12 branch ... wouldn't it
> > be reasonable to use this one as upstream source instead of the
> > tarball?
> > 
> 
> We used to do that .. yes. But then the lttng recipe was changed away
> from git to using the tgz.
> 
> I complained at the time (I'm sure it is in the archives for all to
> see), since I'm constantly doing new kernels and have to do this sort
> of exercise.
> 
> The devupstream bbclass allows me to keep moving on my new kernels
> when I need to pick up changes for -dev, and luckily -stable doesn't
> normally need this sort of thing.
> 
> IIRC it was switched to tgz since things like AUH work better with the
> tarballs, but I can't be sure.
> 
> But let's just say that I agree that this recipe is better as a branch
> based, git recipe and not a tgz based recipe. I just haven't waded
> into the discussion to switch it back :)

Perhaps we have a need for both?

Cheers,

Richard