> 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

Attachment: 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

Reply via email to