On 06/07/2012 05:31 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 05:24:39PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
* We use meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb by default, the
opkg_0.1.8.bb failed since no checksum specified.
* The add_vercmp.patch in both opkg/ and opkg-0.1.8/, remove the one
in opkg-0.1.8/
This patch doesn't impact the output, so I think that we don't have to
increment the PR.
[YOCTO #2498]
Signed-off-by: Robert Yang<[email protected]>
---
.../opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch | 36 --------------------
meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb | 5 ++-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch
b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index c3396d5..0000000
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [other]
-
-Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.c
-===================================================================
---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000
-+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:40:34.000000000 +0000
-@@ -876,3 +876,18 @@
-
- return ret;
- }
-+
-+int
-+opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2)
-+{
-+ pkg_t *pkg1, *pkg2;
-+
-+ pkg1 = pkg_new();
-+ pkg2 = pkg_new();
-+
-+ parse_version(pkg1, ver1);
-+ parse_version(pkg2, ver2);
-+
-+ return pkg_compare_versions(pkg1, pkg2);
-+}
-+
-Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.h
-===================================================================
---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000
-+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:35:19.000000000 +0000
-@@ -58,4 +58,6 @@
-
- int opkg_repository_accessibility_check(void);
-
-+int opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2);
-+
- #endif /* OPKG_H */
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb
b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb
index c206b37..785b6ca 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb
@@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
require opkg.inc
SRC_URI = "http://opkg.googlecode.com/files/opkg-${PV}.tar.gz \
- file://add_vercmp.patch \
+ file://opkg/add_vercmp.patch \
is this "opkg/" really needed?
This seems strange, I did see a WARNING yesterday which said that it can't
find opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch after I removed opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch,
I was curious why this happened, I guessed that this was because there was a
opkg-0.1.8/ directory, and I was thinking whether this was a bug of do_fetch,
but today, I can't reproduce the WARNING, even I added the
opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch back, built opkg, removed the
opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch, built opkg again.
I removed the "opkg/" and pushed the commit to:
git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib robert/opkg_sum
http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=robert/opkg_sum
// Robert
file://headerfix.patch \
"
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "c714ce0e4863bf1315e3b6913ffe3299"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
"ff94bf30bd662d49c4b5057e3a0818d062731adaa555d59abd677ec32a3c1c60"
+
PR = "${INC_PR}.0"
--
1.7.1
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
