Re: [PATCH] dfu-programmer: USB Device Firmware Upgrade utility (special atmel-version)

[Vitus Jensen <vjensen@gmx.de>]

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 <vjensen@gmx.de>
>>> ---
>>> 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).

> 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?

> 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.

Should I drop _svn.bb or use the head revision of today?

Vitus

-- 
Vitus Jensen, Hannover, Germany, Universe (current)
pgp public key available from keyservers