On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@denix.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 01:40:43PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@denix.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:02:06PM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: >> >> On 22 January 2015 at 14:57, Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@denix.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Please note that he's talking about current 2014.07 version, not the >> >> > update! >> >> > Can you confirm that it works or fails on the autobuilder? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Sorry, got lost in the thread. The old version works fine, the upgrade >> >> breaks. >> > >> > That's not the case for the rest of us, unfortunately... >> > >> > I'm suspecting sstate got something to do with the fact that it still works >> > for the old version on autobuilder. >> > >> > >> > Let me emphasise it - this specific u-boot-fw-utils-cross recipe used to >> > build fine, but now fails in the same exact way regardless of the version, >> > either current 2014.07 or the updated 2015.01. >> > >> > So, it seems to me that fixing it is rather out of scope of this version >> > update patch... :) >> > >> > I'm thinking of 2 short-term workarounds - don't update this particular >> > recipe >> > to the new version; or remove it altogether. I'm sure Otavio wouldn't be >> > happy >> > either way, but fixing it should probably be a separate effort... >> >> We should have denied the update on previous versions. It has been >> broken by your update to 2014.07: >> >> Author: Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@ti.com> >> Date: Tue Sep 16 19:10:01 2014 -0400 >> >> u-boot: update to version 2014.07 >> >> u-boot doesn't really support building its tools for the target, as they >> are >> built with HOSTCC compiler, which is also used to compile fixdep utility >> that gets executed during the build. Since it might be beneficial to >> have a >> target version of mkimage, let's hack it to build fixdep in a separate >> step. >> >> Signed-off-by: Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.bur...@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> >> >> and this has not been checked if it kept building at that time. > > Yes, it was building that time! And Ross has proof of that with autobuilder > logs. He wouldn't have accepted it if autobuilder was breaking. It was > breaking on another recipe and I fixed that. But fw-utils-cross was fine. > > >> So I'm ok with this update to go and you work in fix it in a follow up >> patch, but drop it is not acceptable. It has a clear use case. > > If it has such a clear use case, how do you use it when it's broken?
Well a non commonly used one? I didn't expect often use would be a trade metric here but ... -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
