From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [66.111.4.26] (helo=out2.smtp.messagingengine.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ISgo6-00038q-JO for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:23:38 +0200 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D318F277E1 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:21:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:21:14 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: /GIMFlgcTEhXYmh581WDIkAqbRdtIkZISYQxTSGkO7BB 1188944473 Received: from [192.168.18.11] (CPE-121-209-20-195.sa.bigpond.net.au [121.209.20.195]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6299F22AEA for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46DDDA55.7070507@whitby.id.au> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:51:09 +0930 From: Rod Whitby User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <20070904202957.GD1429@dodger.lab.datenfreihafen.org> In-Reply-To: <20070904202957.GD1429@dodger.lab.datenfreihafen.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Subject: Re: [RFC] How to handle external kernel patches in oe the right way? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:23:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Due to my work on OpenEZX (http://www.openezx.org) I'm in touch with > external kernel patches used in OE to build working kernels for > different Motorola mobile phones. > > Talking with Koen about the best way to handle this we have some > slightly different opinions on this. So we like to get some more > opinions on this before pinning to a strategy. > > Koen like to pull the patches from a known-good rev into oe to have > them all at one place for less fragile building and tweaking. > > I prefer OE to use our svn server with a fixed SRCREV which gets > updated once a newer version is known good. I'm not a fan of > duplicating the patches in OE if some small tweaking patches can also > handle it. For the ixp4xx-kernel in OE, I pull patches from a fixed known-good rev in the nslu2-linux.org kernel patches svn. The reason is that it makes it easier to keep the patches in sync for OE, OpenWrt and Debian (which all use those patches). > For bleeding edge building and testing we will create a recipe with > DEFAULT = -1 anyway. > > I'm not totally against Koens approach, just see not much sense, but > more problems in duplicating the patches in OE. If other people are > still for it we can of course go that route. I can see both points of view. As an upstream kernel patch maintainer, I like to keep a single respository, and then use that in all the downstream distributions (OE being just one of them) directly. As a distro maintainer, Koen wants to ensure that OE is not affected by downtime on the upstream server. Both are valid (but conflicting) points of view. Since I'm the ixp4xx-kernel.bb maintainer in OE at the moment, then I feel that I have the right to choose the way that works for me for that package :-) Since I also run the upstream svn server, I can ensure that it has a better uptime than the OE monotone server and wiki ;-) -- Rod