Op 20 okt. 2011, om 14:38 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 13:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >> Op 20 okt. 2011, om 13:21 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: >> >>> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 08:23 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> Op 28 sep. 2011, om 22:04 heeft Otavio Salvador het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 16:50, Richard Purdie >>>>> <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>>>>> This patch improves the current situation and I don't foresee the >>>>>>> autoPR code working soon >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is why we need to switch to that model and shake out the issues >>>>>> sooner than later. Enough is enough with the PR madness and we need to >>>>>> get to grips and fix it. >>>>> >>>>> I fully agree this is the way to go but this doesn't mean we ought to >>>>> hold this patch until all this happens. This patch allows the removal >>>>> of the kernel.bbclass from meta-oe so reducing the delta between >>>>> oe-core and meta-oe. >>>> >>>> So a month later and no sign of the mythical working >>>> auto-PR-incrementer or work on it. >>> >>> A month where we were stabilising for a release. Its on the 1.2 feature >>> list and as it happens I've been hearing questions about what is needed >>> here. >>> >>>> So can this patch go in? It would mean we can drop kernel.bbclass >>>> from meta-oe. >>> >>> I *HATE* this PR bumping stuff. I've just been told we likely need to >>> bump the PR for anything using libGL which once again shows that build >>> system basically failing to automate building things. >>> >>> So I'm drawing a line here and no, we can't take this. If its fine to >>> expect people to bump PR values manually for lib* changes, its fine for >>> kernels too. I'd suggest you do drop this from meta-oe and we start >>> building up pressure for the problem to get fixed properly rather than >>> letting people wallpaper over the cracks. >> >> I have products to ship, so treating meta-oe as a plaything and break >> this for the sake of breaking it is unacceptable. I'll let oe-core >> have the monopoly on high-qualitily, but broken metadata. > > Its not as if there isn't another way to handle this, it is a little > harder work I agree. This isn't breaking for the sake of breaking > either, its applying a bit of pressure to ensure we fix an underlying > problem we've had for a long time. I don't think fixing it will be easy, > I do think we need to though. > > Also, the idea never was to have everyone using bleeding edge for > shipping products. This is what stable releases are for?
That's what stable releases are for, but I don't see a release for OE-core, do you? I see a poky release, but not an OE-core release. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
