On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 14:54 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 20 okt. 2011, om 14:38 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 13:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 20 okt. 2011, om 13:21 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > >> > >>> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 08:23 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > >>>> Op 28 sep. 2011, om 22:04 heeft Otavio Salvador het volgende geschreven: > >>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 16:50, Richard Purdie > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> This patch improves the current situation and I don't foresee the > >>>>>>> autoPR code working soon > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Which is why we need to switch to that model and shake out the issues > >>>>>> sooner than later. Enough is enough with the PR madness and we need to > >>>>>> get to grips and fix it. > >>>>> > >>>>> I fully agree this is the way to go but this doesn't mean we ought to > >>>>> hold this patch until all this happens. This patch allows the removal > >>>>> of the kernel.bbclass from meta-oe so reducing the delta between > >>>>> oe-core and meta-oe. > >>>> > >>>> So a month later and no sign of the mythical working > >>>> auto-PR-incrementer or work on it. > >>> > >>> A month where we were stabilising for a release. Its on the 1.2 feature > >>> list and as it happens I've been hearing questions about what is needed > >>> here. > >>> > >>>> So can this patch go in? It would mean we can drop kernel.bbclass > >>>> from meta-oe. > >>> > >>> I *HATE* this PR bumping stuff. I've just been told we likely need to > >>> bump the PR for anything using libGL which once again shows that build > >>> system basically failing to automate building things. > >>> > >>> So I'm drawing a line here and no, we can't take this. If its fine to > >>> expect people to bump PR values manually for lib* changes, its fine for > >>> kernels too. I'd suggest you do drop this from meta-oe and we start > >>> building up pressure for the problem to get fixed properly rather than > >>> letting people wallpaper over the cracks. > >> > >> I have products to ship, so treating meta-oe as a plaything and break > >> this for the sake of breaking it is unacceptable. I'll let oe-core > >> have the monopoly on high-qualitily, but broken metadata. > > > > Its not as if there isn't another way to handle this, it is a little > > harder work I agree. This isn't breaking for the sake of breaking > > either, its applying a bit of pressure to ensure we fix an underlying > > problem we've had for a long time. I don't think fixing it will be easy, > > I do think we need to though. > > > > Also, the idea never was to have everyone using bleeding edge for > > shipping products. This is what stable releases are for? > > That's what stable releases are for, but I don't see a release for > OE-core, do you? I see a poky release, but not an OE-core release.
As you are no doubt aware, that got discussed at the last TSC meeting. Khem did volunteer to help with that, there is a branch there ready to be tagged too and I was planning to raise progress with this at tonight's TSC meeting. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
