On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 09:02 +0100, Nicolas Dechesne wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Pengyu Ma <pengyu...@windriver.com> wrote: > > Understood, but there are 2 version mesa_xxx.bb and mesa_git.bb. > > Is there any reason why keep two versions? > > right. this is indeed a good question. I am not sure what the > 'semantics' of the _git.bb recipe really is. In my minds the _git was > supposed to point to development branch, or -rc release... looking at > history it seems we keep it in sync with the other mesa recipe.. so i > am not actually sure why we do that.. maybe someone else can answer.
There once was a plan to have something closer to upstream for testing and getting things from the SCM is the way to do that. The indent was to learn about issues before they got released rather than afterwards. As such, we have pieces of this around, the poky-bleeding DISTRO setting for example was meant to enable the git versions of recipes. Some people when developing/testing/debugging have developed git versions of recipes and where they still work and aren't a maintenance burden, we've left them. I've personally used a few recipes like that and I know others have too. I do still dream of the day we'll have the resources/technology to make poky-bleeding a reality again. So the git recipe is intended to look beyond the last stable release or otherwise be the same. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
