Op 28 sep. 2011 om 09:54 heeft Richard Purdie <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 18:40 -0500, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >> Op 27 sep. 2011 om 08:52 heeft Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]> het >> volgende geschreven: >> >>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> MACHINE_KERNEL_PR was introduced long ago in org.oe.dev. It's present in >>>> meta-oe kernel.bbclass. Several machines depend on this functionality. >>> >>> I don' t have a big problem with this, since the change is obviously >>> harmless if it >>> doesn't need to be used. But similar to my comment on patch 3/5, is there >>> any >>> history/technical reasons we can capture here ? >>> >>> I did a quick search to dig up a bit on this myself, but a summary >>> would definitely >>> help, since I see that this has a long and sometimes twisting history. Is >>> it as >>> simple as ? >>> >>> "A machine.conf or local.conf can increase MACHINE_KERNEL_PR to force >>> rebuilds for kernel and external modules" >> >> It is that simple :) > > I have reservations about this patch given we soon plan to stop needing > to bump PR values. This patch is actually a perfect example of how brain > dead the current manual PR bumping is and why we need something better. > I don't want half the code in the repo to be a mass of PR values which > need to be incremented manually under weird and wonderful circumstances > which is where the direction things are currently going... > > I'd like to hold off on this one. This patch improves the current situation and I don't foresee the autoPR code working soon > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
