> On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:27 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 10:54 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> Either use 4.7.99+4.8-rc4 like most other recipes do or at least >> "4.8~rc4" >> which might sort lower than "4.8" (but needs to be verified for all >> packaging backends first). >> >> Ignoring all this completely results with what we can see in oe-core >> now: >> >> ERROR: linux-libc-headers-4.8-r0 do_packagedata: QA Issue: Package >> version for package linux-libc-headers-dbg went backwards which would >> break package feeds from (0:4.8-rc4-r0.0 to 0:4.8-r0.0) >> [version-going-backwards] > > Sorry, we did screw up there :(. Lots of moving pieces and its hard to > catch/remember everything. > > I wish we knew for certain whether ~ works properly everywhere. A good > case for some unittests I guess…
I always wished there was a magic wand ( a sanity test) sort of which was able to catch the package feed upgradability > > Cheers, > > Richard > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
