On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:23:12PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 02:04:03PM +0100, Paul Barker wrote: > > On 1 April 2014 13:29, Paul Barker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 1 April 2014 01:58, Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> From: Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> > > >> > > >> The latest commit in opkg-utils allows packages created by opkg-build to > > >> be read > > >> by dpkg-deb again. > > >> > > >> (Based on OE-Core master rev: 219944af2700ce9dbc425fac384cd32b0a802123, > > >> but all of the update-alternative fixes from master are skipped) > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> > > >> Cc: Paul Barker <[email protected]> > > >> --- > > >> meta/recipes-devtools/opkg-utils/opkg-utils_git.bb | 2 +- > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg-utils/opkg-utils_git.bb > > >> b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg-utils/opkg-utils_git.bb > > >> index 279cb74..fef0d13 100644 > > >> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg-utils/opkg-utils_git.bb > > >> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg-utils/opkg-utils_git.bb > > >> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = > > >> "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f \ > > >> > > >> file://opkg.py;beginline=1;endline=18;md5=15917491ad6bf7acc666ca5f7cc1e083" > > >> RDEPENDS_${PN} = "python python-shell python-io python-math > > >> python-crypt python-logging python-fcntl python-subprocess python-pickle > > >> python-compression python-textutils python-stringold" > > >> RDEPENDS_${PN}_class-native = "" > > >> -SRCREV = "757a1664a440c60e8126443bf984e4bdf374c327" > > >> +SRCREV = "c33b217016ee911718b10c9d57f9912935baf5a9" > > >> PV = "0.1.8+git${SRCPV}" > > >> > > >> SRC_URI = "git://git.yoctoproject.org/opkg-utils \ > > >> -- > > >> 1.9.1 > > >> > > > > > > Personally I would prefer rebasing the existing patch and fixing the > > > merge conflict, maintaining the patch author and existing sign offs > > > and adding your sign off to the end. I don't know if there's a policy > > > on this for Yocto Project. > > Of course you would, wouldn't you? :) I'm not looking for any extra credit > here, but it wasn't trivial to merge the existing commit while backporting to > dora and re-creating it was much easier. There were past precedents of that, > where backport fixes were "based on" the commit, instead of the actual direct > merge or cherry-pick of it... > > > > > I've Cc'd Robert Yang as he's the stable branch maintainer for Dora as > > > per https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Stable_branch_maintenance > > > > > > > Infact, NACK on this. opkg-utils/Makefile @ > > c33b217016ee911718b10c9d57f9912935baf5a9 lists update-alternatives to > > be installed on 'make install'. > > > > If you want just this fix, you need to keep SRCREV as is and add the > > change from c33b217016ee911718b10c9d57f9912935baf5a9 as a new patch > > within oe-core. > > Well, I've been using this patch in dora for some time now and it works just > fine. But I understand there might be a conflict between update-alternatives, > so one of the possible workarounds would be to remove the new binary from the > package. Although that would make it even less of a backport and rather a new > implementation on its own... Anyway, this dpkg-deb strictness is just so > annoying!
I haven't read whole discussion, but the idea of adding just one needed patch from the repo into oe-core metadata seems reasonable to me (unless someone wants to create dora branch in opkg-utils repo and cherry-pick just that one required commit there + update SRC_URI + SRCREV accordingly). It's imho better than creating new "less-tested" combination of all changes from opkg-utils with only some changes for opkg-utils recipes. -- 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
