Hi, On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:53:40PM -0500, Randy MacLeod wrote: > On 2015-11-18 04:34 AM, Maxin B. John wrote: > >4.1.1 -> 4.3.0 > > > >Signed-off-by: Maxin B. John <[email protected]> > >--- > > .../iproute2/{iproute2_4.1.1.bb => iproute2_4.3.0.bb} | 4 > > ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > rename meta/recipes-connectivity/iproute2/{iproute2_4.1.1.bb => > > iproute2_4.3.0.bb} (68%) > > > >diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/iproute2/iproute2_4.1.1.bb > >b/meta/recipes-connectivity/iproute2/iproute2_4.3.0.bb > >similarity index 68% > >rename from meta/recipes-connectivity/iproute2/iproute2_4.1.1.bb > >rename to meta/recipes-connectivity/iproute2/iproute2_4.3.0.bb > >index 10db0ba..0b3d896 100644 > >--- a/meta/recipes-connectivity/iproute2/iproute2_4.1.1.bb > >+++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/iproute2/iproute2_4.3.0.bb > >@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ SRC_URI = > >"${KERNELORG_MIRROR}/linux/utils/net/${BPN}/${BP}.tar.xz \ > > file://configure-cross.patch \ > > file://0001-iproute2-de-bash-scripts.patch \ > > " > >-SRC_URI[md5sum] = "39290cb3a55d38dd8d10e19a3094109f" > >-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = > >"73077a989efb934450bd655cbd9aaddaa747cb696c64d0c9a3323768a6a8e66f" > >+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "1a2bbb80cfc7ab3f3e987e18b3207c2f" > >+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = > >"f03b1188dd6c039512424de82ff7a8f3b446680bd4e908ff42a7b9b137422995" > > > > # CFLAGS are computed in Makefile and reference CCOPTS > > # > > > > > There are other iproute utilities that are not yet packaged: > misc netem genl tipc > and perhaps more from the make install rule: > for i in lib ip tc bridge misc netem genl tipc man; \ > Note that misc contains these executables: > > misc/lnstat > misc/ifstat > misc/arpd > misc/rtacct > misc/nstat > misc/ss >
Good catch. Yes, we haven't packaged the above mentioned binaries, cbq and shared libraries (q_netem.so) here. > Do we want individual iproute2-FOO packages or a catchall > iproute2-extras ? > I think additional packages for each of: misc netem genl tipc > should be fine but I haven't played with these tools recently > so input is welcome. IMHO, we shouldn't add more complexity in recipe or new recipess for this. We should use the iproute2 recipe to install all these binaries. > > These were not packaged in jethro AFAIK so we should pull the > patch back once there is consensus. Yes. These binaries were not packaged in jethro as well. I am not sure about the historical reason behind it. Since jethro can't accept "new binaries" at this stage, I guess, we should update the iproute2 recipe present in the master branch. > -- > # Randy MacLeod. SMTS, Linux, Wind River > Direct: 613.963.1350 | 350 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 200, Ottawa, ON, Canada, > K2K 2W5 Best Regards, Maxin -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
