From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nzo9o-00070F-P5 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:36:17 +0200 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3AFEA799 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 08 Apr 2010 05:32:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=QtiFeuubfrzC7iavsTqA8SrlmyM=; b=k6sgdbJ1cwYizKGNbf8f1NeS6OgqZuJBH27YPBY4ThfPD5r0Xp+gOTn6L3AKFxXIIfSOL4VFDtXGvAJh/hnTXS+PC8qGwkt07eZsrnM3Xejp8Jxv9kHFLhJVAGEvNsApO6h17svM3l9WT4SXVP7fv+VnqiRLZc6iZKITtUJ4fqI= X-Sasl-enc: hJx1+RONw6neDQg9itC7plS1f+dDeSfRd+h88qpZcGlv 1270719175 Received: from vitus.devnet.local (unknown [212.144.247.210]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA61C4A44C6 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 05:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:32:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Vitus Jensen To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <20100408085916.GB27376@excalibur.local> Message-ID: References: <20100408085916.GB27376@excalibur.local> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) Jabber-ID: vitus_jensen@gmx.de X-Accepted-File-Formats: ASCII rtf ps pdf - *NO* MS Office files please X-Message-Flag: Worried about bugs & viruses? Switch to Mac/Unix/PC Pine! Info @ www.ii.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 66.111.4.26 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: vjensen@gmx.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_FAIL 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 09:36:17 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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). > 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