On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 10:32, Vitus Jensen wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Vitus Jensen wrote: >>> >>> Add recipes for version 0.5.2 and for the head of the SVN repository. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vitus Jensen <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> conf/checksums.ini | 4 ++++ >>> recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_0.5.2.bb | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >>> recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_svn.bb | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_0.5.2.bb >>> create mode 100644 recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_svn.bb >> >> I know that nowerdays the checksums are inside the recipe. But we >> are working on the stable/2009 branch were it isn't done this way >> (or not supported?). Please accept as is. > > This patch was targetted for the stable branch? If yes please indicate this in > the subject of the patch. You would need to get your patch into OE.dev first > before it can go into stable IIRC, but I leave it to the stable developers to > comment on this.
Well, everything we do is done in the stable/2009 branch because we need the stability. We cherry-pick from .dev (which is getting harder because of the staging changes) and add new programs and machines. I would like to publish the changes but they have to be for .dev (policy) and mostly identically to what is used here (because I don't want to maintain 2 images for the devices). > Having one patch for .dev with the checksum in the recipe and one for stable > with the sum in the ini file would also be fine I think. No hard feelings on > this though. Will try out checksums inside the recipe in the stable/2009 branch. I think the support for it is only depending on bitbake versions, right? > An updated patch for the AUTOREV issue is still needed. Well... the repository get updates every few months, mostly to support new chips. So the possibility is high that someone needs _svn.bb because of he wants to program a newer atmel and I don't feel like deciding which chip support to include or not. I've included it to make it simple to get the absolute newest programmer, for me 0.5.2 is enough. Should I drop _svn.bb or use the head revision of today? Vitus -- Vitus Jensen, Hannover, Germany, Universe (current) pgp public key available from keyservers _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
