On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:00:52AM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 01:39, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This isn't a git snapshot recipe but a release that is fetched over it. > > > For > > > clarity, put the PV in the filename. > > > > I think its better to keep it as it is. since its easy to trace git log > > history. > > So should I be renaming gcc-8.3.bb to gcc_http.bb? If the argument is > that the filename should contain the transport protocol and PV is > embedded in the recipe so that git log is easier, we should be > applying that rule consistently.
FWIW: I agree with Khem.
http fetcher won't (usually) fetch different version just by changing 1
variable inside the recipe and vice versa, renaming the recipe won't
fetch different SRCREV with git.
If someone wants to update SRCREV in libcoms to be 10 commits behind
0.1.10, is he expected to rename the recipe back to libcomps_git.bb and
re-add the PV variable (with new +git${SRCPV} suffix)?
I got used to "+git${SRCPV}" being dropped when the SRCREV matches
exactly the git tag, but renaming the recipe and removing the PV seems
too much, what is the benefit of doing that? It's not for clarity or
easier maintenance (at least for me), because PV next to SRCREV makes
much more sense to me (and helps people not to forget updating both at
the same time).
Regards,
--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
