On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/05/2016 01:02 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 00:33 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 09/05/2016 12:23 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 09/05/2016 12:11 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to >>>>>> perform >>>>>> update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this >>>>>> current >>>>>> patch >>>>>> as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the >>>>>> version >>>>>> in >>>>>> u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only >>>>>> rename >>>>>> the >>>>>> recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their >>>>>> content and >>>>>> change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds >>>>>> some >>>>>> toil. >>>>> Unless its: >>>>> >>>>> require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc >>>>> >>>>> since it should be able to extract PV from the filename... >>>> Ah right, thanks :) >>>> >>>> I'll rebuild/retest and send a V2 . >>>> >>> I was a bit hasty, the u-boot.inc includes u-boot-common.inc without >>> having PV set. Any idea how to deal with that ? >> >> Just put includes in the versioned files rather than from u-boot.inc? > > Wouldn't that break some BSPs ? I factored out code from the u-boot.inc > afterall.
It will but I consider this fine for master as this clean up the recipes and ensures people goes on the review process while upgrading it. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
