On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 09:07:01AM -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > Fair enough, there are valid concerns here, though I think some exist with > or without the bbversions mechanism to a certain extent. If a minor version > is buildable that isn't patched with the security patch, remove it from the > BBVERSIONS variable. Not that different from what you'd do today, just with > less individual recipes. I'm not proposing that we sit down and turn every > recipe into something like what I'm playing with with nano, where you can > build any version that exists, this is just a proof of concept, to > experiment with the new possibilities for structuring of recipes. I expect > in the real world we'd start by using it to consolidate some metadata, as > you mention, and add only versions which we already have, or have tested. > Do you think the feature would be useful in this way?
Sure, I'm just pointing that expected use-cases where it's really usefull are a bit limited by those concerns above. So it was more for your question if it's worth it :). > Of course, ideally, we'd set up more testing of things on the target with an > automated testing system of some sort, to make it easier to confirm that we > haven't broken things in other versions and other architectures (and this is > a concern today too). > > Are there any concerns about this feature existing actually being a problem, > in that it will encourage people to start using it, or should we get it into > master and see how it goes? We won't be able to really utilize it in OE > until 1.10 releases and we bump our required bitbake to 1.10 anyway, which > is why I'm doing the testing and experimentation outside it for now. At least I'm happy to see another dev waiting for 1.10 required by oe.dev :). Cheers, -- uin:136542059 jid:[email protected] Jansa Martin sip:[email protected] JaMa _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
