Re: BBVERSIONS

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 09:07:01AM -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> Fair enough, there are valid concerns here, though I think some exist with
> or without the bbversions mechanism to a certain extent.  If a minor version
> is buildable that isn't patched with the security patch, remove it from the
> BBVERSIONS variable.  Not that different from what you'd do today, just with
> less individual recipes.  I'm not proposing that we sit down and turn every
> recipe into something like what I'm playing with with nano, where you can
> build any version that exists, this is just a proof of concept, to
> experiment with the new possibilities for structuring of recipes.  I expect
> in the real world we'd start by using it to consolidate some metadata, as
> you mention, and add only versions which we already have, or have tested.
>  Do you think the feature would be useful in this way?

Sure, I'm just pointing that expected use-cases where it's really
usefull are a bit limited by those concerns above. So it was more for
your question if it's worth it :). 


> Of course, ideally, we'd set up more testing of things on the target with an
> automated testing system of some sort, to make it easier to confirm that we
> haven't broken things in other versions and other architectures (and this is
> a concern today too).
> 
> Are there any concerns about this feature existing actually being a problem,
> in that it will encourage people to start using it, or should we get it into
> master and see how it goes?  We won't be able to really utilize it in OE
> until 1.10 releases and we bump our required bitbake to 1.10 anyway, which
> is why I'm doing the testing and experimentation outside it for now.

At least I'm happy to see another dev waiting for 1.10 required by
oe.dev :).

Cheers,

-- 
uin:136542059                jid:Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
Jansa Martin                 sip:jamasip@voip.wengo.fr 
JaMa