From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sirius.lasnet.de ([78.47.116.19]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nzpf4-0000vn-85 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:12:38 +0200 Received: from w0952.wlan.rz.tu-bs.de ([134.169.203.190] helo=excalibur) by sirius.lasnet.de with esmtpsa (Cipher TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1Nzpbm-0000YD-RC by authid with cram_md5 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:09:17 +0200 Received: from stefan by excalibur with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nzpbm-0004Pe-92 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:09:14 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:09:14 +0200 From: Stefan Schmidt To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20100408110914.GG27376@excalibur.local> References: <20100408085916.GB27376@excalibur.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mutt http://www.mutt.org/ X-KeyID: 0xDDF51665 X-Website: http://www.datenfreihafen.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.47.116.19 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: stefan@datenfreihafen.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [PATCH] dfu-programmer: USB Device Firmware Upgrade utility (special atmel-version) X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:12:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hello. On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 11:32, Vitus Jensen wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 10:32, Vitus Jensen wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Vitus Jensen wrote: > >>> > >>> Add recipes for version 0.5.2 and for the head of the SVN repository. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Vitus Jensen > >>> --- > >>> conf/checksums.ini | 4 ++++ > >>> recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_0.5.2.bb | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > >>> recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_svn.bb | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >>> create mode 100644 recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_0.5.2.bb > >>> create mode 100644 recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_svn.bb > >> > >> I know that nowerdays the checksums are inside the recipe. But we > >> are working on the stable/2009 branch were it isn't done this way > >> (or not supported?). Please accept as is. > > > > This patch was targetted for the stable branch? If yes please indicate this in > > the subject of the patch. You would need to get your patch into OE.dev first > > before it can go into stable IIRC, but I leave it to the stable developers to > > comment on this. > > Well, everything we do is done in the stable/2009 branch because we need > the stability. We cherry-pick from .dev (which is getting harder because > of the staging changes) and add new programs and machines. I would like > to publish the changes but they have to be for .dev (policy) and mostly > identically to what is used here (because I don't want to maintain 2 > images for the devices). As I said, no hard feelings. But it likely that the versions in .dev and stable will drift away rom each other anyway. > > Having one patch for .dev with the checksum in the recipe and one for stable > > with the sum in the ini file would also be fine I think. No hard feelings on > > this though. > > Will try out checksums inside the recipe in the stable/2009 branch. I > think the support for it is only depending on bitbake versions, right? I would think it is a combination from bitbake and classes inside the OE tree, but I can't tell for sure. > > An updated patch for the AUTOREV issue is still needed. > > Well... the repository get updates every few months, mostly to support new > chips. So the possibility is high that someone needs _svn.bb because of > he wants to program a newer atmel and I don't feel like deciding which > chip support to include or not. I've included it to make it simple to get > the absolute newest programmer, for me 0.5.2 is enough. Understoof. Sadly having AUTOREV set makes it hard for different people to have a consistent build. Therefor we normally only enable it within local.conf > Should I drop _svn.bb or use the head revision of today? As you prefer. I'm not going to use dfu-programmer just giving some review on your patch. regards Stefan Schmidt