On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 1:57 AM Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 11:41 +0000, Mikko Rapeli wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:45:00PM +0530, Ranjitsinh Rathod wrote: > > > Use CVE_CHECK_WHITELIST as CVE_CHECK_IGNORE is not valid on dunfell > > > branch > > > > Good finding, thanks. I think it makes sence to support both > > CVE_CHECK_WHITELIST > > and CVE_CHECK_IGNORE variables in dunfell as patches will be cherry-picked > > and > > this issue may creep in again silently. > > > > Other opinions? > > I wondered if we backport the BB_RENAMED_VARIABLES functionality to > older bitbakes but use it differently - have it error if the new names > are detected? > > That way we solve this for the other variable names too. > > Steve: Any thoughts?
First of all, sorry this slipped by me :-( I support the approach of having bitbake error if the new names are detected and would gladly take such a patch. I think this is much better than having a mix of old and new variable names in dunfell. Steve
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#165735): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/165735 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/91160955/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
