Hello. On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 11:32, Vitus Jensen wrote: > 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).
As I said, no hard feelings. But it likely that the versions in .dev and stable will drift away rom each other anyway. > > 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? I would think it is a combination from bitbake and classes inside the OE tree, but I can't tell for sure. > > 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. Understoof. Sadly having AUTOREV set makes it hard for different people to have a consistent build. Therefor we normally only enable it within local.conf > Should I drop _svn.bb or use the head revision of today? As you prefer. I'm not going to use dfu-programmer just giving some review on your patch. regards Stefan Schmidt _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
