On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:57 +0000, Lehtonen, Markus wrote: > On 28/11/14 14:17, "Patrick Ohly" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 10:10 +0200, Markus Lehtonen wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thanks for your comments. > >> > >> On 27/11/14 15:33, "Patrick Ohly" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 16:02 +0100, Dominig ar Foll (Intel OTC) wrote: > >> >> The infra team has taken the time to document a model proposition and > >> >> would like to get all the feedback possible. > >> >> https://wiki.tizen.org/wiki/Tizen-Distro_Workflow > >> > > >> >Before diving more into it, let's clarify some points: > >> > > >> >What does "the above automation" refer to in the last section? Just the > >> >"Syncing of external repositories" or everything? > >> > >> Ah yes. It refers to the syncing of external repositories, e.g. oe-core. > >> > >> > >> >In the "RPM vs. BitBake packaging meta data" section, can you clarify > >> >which meta data can be edited manually? It just says "packaging > >>updated" > >> >and it does not become clear which one that is. But as the flow diagram > >> >always ends up modifying the .spec file, I assume that only the .bb > >>data > >> >may be edited. What happens when a change gets committed with > >> >modified .spec? > >> > >> There would be a distinction between "fully automatically maintained" > >>spec > >> files and "semi-automatically" maintained spec files. > > > >Which spec files will be "semi-automatically" maintained? I wasn't aware > >that we had such a category ;-} > > It's the "spec file marked for auto-update" in the diagram. Need to make > the description clearer on this.
What I meant is: which of the current Tizen git trees will be in this "semi-automatically maintained" mode? > The idea behind the auto-generation of .spec-related patches for the > "semi-automatic" packages was to work as a gentle push/reminder towards > maintaining the packaging metadata in .bb. That could be removed, if seen > useless/redundant/annoying. I suspect that you mean packages where someone has created a .bb file once, while others continue to use and edit .spec files. If yes, then pushing the generated .spec for review will essentially undo the later manual changes to the .spec file. I don't think we should do this. The purpose of such a mixed tree could be to prepare the future .bb in parallel to still building with hand-crafted .spec. But I'm not sure how useful that would be in practice. I think it would be easier to try out a .bb locally, then push it for review at the same time as converting the tree from .spec to .bb. > >The obvious downside is that meta-tizen lacks Tizen and most likely will > >never be quite complete. It will be much better to maintain all packages > >with .bb, > > Yup. But we might need to do something like that under a transition period > where all maintainers are not yet using .bb. Exactly. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
