On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:02:41AM -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Tom Zanussi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is for the userspace tracing part, lttng-ust, which AFAIK doesn't > > require any kernel patches. > > > > Yes, but the point was, as far as I know, the newer ust requires the newer > kernel components, and the older requires the older kernel components, so > technically the package upgrade on a device is likely to change the > behavior. > > I didn't say the current version required patches, the point was about the > upgrade path for this recipe. I suspect we're one of the only companies > that was actually using the old recipes, and we don't particularly care > about the binary package upgrade paths at this time, but again, this is > *not* a particularly smooth binary package upgrade path. I expect we're > fine with that, but I wanted make sure it was an explicit conscious choice > of behavior, not something unexpected.
From what you said it looks like recipe shouldn't be renamed in first place. I'm not interested in lttng, first I was commenting only about recipe being renamed without RPROVIDES/RREPLEACES/RCONFLICTS combo and then I was surprised to see that ERROR about version downgrade from buildhistory. Cheers, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
