2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardi...@nanometrics.ca> > Hi Koen, Frans, > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Koen Kooi <k...@dominion.thruhere.net> > wrote: > > > > Op 28 jul. 2011, om 05:38 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven: > > > >> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbro...@gmail.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardi...@nanometrics.ca> > >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_r...@mentor.com> > >> > >> This recipe is a port of recipes/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb from > >> git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded, commits > >> 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad 'raptor: added recipe' and > >> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 'raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS' > > > > Why does this need to be in OE-core and not in some other layer? It > doesn't look so core to me, especially since nothing in oe-core (or > meta-oe/efl/gnome for that matter) depends on it > > Because oe-core's meta/recipes-support (naively) seemed like a > reasonable place for it. I would be happy to re-spin the patch for > locating it in any layer. Please advise me. >
oe-core is only for core recipes. Not sure about the exact definition, but I suspect it is something like "recipes that (virtually) everybody needs". I'm not sure about layer policies, but maybe this could go to meta-oe. > > It's true that nothing depends on it. As Frans mentions later it's > only dependent in oe.dev is flickrcurl. Raptor is both a library and a > utility; we use the latter so raptor itself is a dependency of our > images. > > >> > >> The recipe was modified by adding a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardi...@nanometrics.ca> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Not tested in the oe-core + meta-openembedded et. al. layers. > > I'm sorry for the confusion -- this recipe is/was tested in oe.dev and > 2011.03-maintenance branches. > I'd say that before submitting you should as a minimum test that it builds properly in the layer you are submitting it (so e.g. we're sure all depends are there). > > > So why are you sending it if it isn't tested? > > > >> We are not > >> ready yet to migrate from the 2011.03-maintenance branch. This patch is > >> proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy > >> requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch > > > > Where does it say it's OK to do a pull request for untested recipes? And > where does it say it needs to be in OE-core first? > > My understanding of Tom's post to the oe.dev mailing list is that > commits in pull-requests for 2011.03 need to first be oe-core or one > of its layers. > No idea here. But why would add a patch for LIC_FILES_CHECKSUM in the maintenance tree. If I recall correctly those are not needed in 2011.03 (but if it is and it is missing from the recipe, I think it should be added, if not, probably leave the recipe as is). > > In Message-ID: <4dfa7108.5020...@mentor.com> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at > 5:09 PM, Tom Rini <tom_r...@mentor.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi all, > > > > As part of this weeks TSC meeting, an agenda item was brought up about > > the 2011.03-maintenance branch and oe-core / etc. I have now updated > > the policy about where changes need to be before they can be included in > > 2011.03-maintenance to include being in oe-core / meta-oe or other > > relevant public layer instead of being only in the oe.dev master branch. > > This is not a policy change, but a clarification of what was there > > previously. Thanks all! > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks > <fransmeulenbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardi...@nanometrics.ca> > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbro...@gmail.com> > > > > Eh, yes and no. > > > > I did write the original recipe and commited it on 14 aug 2010 with a > > sign-off message. > > As such this got my signoff, but I am not sure the signoff should be > > repeated if this moved to oe-core. > > Fair enough. It is your Sign-off to give or take. > > I was following the patch message guidelines. "Example: Importaing > from Elsewhere Modified" in particular: > > > http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Example:_Importing_from_Elsewhere_Modified > Ah ok, Those guidelines are fairly new and I was not too aware of them. If it is in accordance with the guidelines it is fine with me to keep them. I was mainly triggered by the signed-off lines at the beginning of your message (which I don't think are in accordance to the above mentioned guidelines). The only concern I have is that the sign-off would be interpreted as my blessing for this patch in oe-core. If it only is used as an indicator of the origin or as a statement that I released and was entitled to release the original stuff, that is ok (as that is still appropriate). > > I will remove your Sign-off in v2. > > > My sign-off at that time is definitely not to be used as a suggestion it > is > > ok for oe-core (actually I feel this is not something for oe-core) > > Understood -- I am happy to re-spin for inclusion in any layer. Please > advise. > > Best Regards, > Ben Gardiner > > --- > Nanometrics Inc. > http://www.nanometrics.ca >
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core