On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:16:07PM +0100, Andrea Adami wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: > > The following changes since commit 986de01251408605161e0f8343866a0e7ffe7910: > > > > qmake2: remove (2012-03-21 13:50:44 +0100) > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib jansa/kernel > > http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=jansa/kernel > > > > Martin Jansa (3): > > kernel.bbclass: import s/1/True/ changes from oe-core version > > kernel.bbclass: import QA warning fix for unpackaged files from > > oe-core > > kernel.bbclass: populate /etc/modules-load.d/ with module_autoload > > entries too > > > > meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass | 64 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > 1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 1.7.8.5 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Openembedded-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > > Can we hope this copy of kernel.bbclass will be removed from meta-oe one day? > Is it still here because the machine_kernel_pr ?
Yes it's still mostly because of machine_kernel_pr. > I ask, because the differences between the two copies are not too many > but are increasing with the time, i.e. do_compile_kernelmodules, > do_uboot_mkimage, kernel_do_deploy. That's why I was syncing some before my patches, feel free to merge rest if you test it. > IMHO it is very bad keeping two copies of a basic class like this one. Yes it is, you can ask for machine_kernel_pr inclusion in that old oe-core thread too.. Cheers, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
