On 2017-05-10 17:38, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On 05/10/2017 06:34 PM, Davis, Michael wrote:
Sitting on 2.3 wouldn't be too much an issue for me, but I can't speak for
others that may be in the same situation.
Do these patches / new versions require 1.1.0 or break backwards compatibility
with 1.0.2?
It would be nice if it could be handled by the
PREFFERED_VERSION/PREFERRERED_PROVIDER.
PREFERRED_ thing is not possible, unfortunately. 1.1 is API incompatible with
1.0, and so both need to be provided at
the same time, with recipes explicitly telling which one they need. Most of the
patchset is moving various recipes to
newer, 1.1 compatible versions, so we minimize the need for 1.0.
1.0 will be provided for as long as upstream supports it, which should be
another two years or so.
Why not do this in a "softer" way - make the new 1.1 package have the
obscured name (and not be preferred by default)? That way existing
uses of the older 1.0 package can continue but users can migrate to
1.1 as they see fit?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
