There is no hard rule here, maybe a follow up is simpler.
Alex
> On 18 May 2019, at 13.35, Tom Rini wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:34:14PM +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
>>
>> This is up to the recipe maintainer (Tom) to do; I only want to ensure
>> AUH does not choke on the recipe.
>
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:34:14PM +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> This is up to the recipe maintainer (Tom) to do; I only want to ensure
> AUH does not choke on the recipe.
What's proper etiquette here? Shall I grab, v2 and include Martin's
suggestions, or follow-up and Suggested-by them? Th
This is up to the recipe maintainer (Tom) to do; I only want to ensure
AUH does not choke on the recipe.
Alex
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 16:29, Martin Jansa wrote:
>
> Actually the BBCLASSEXTEND = "native" as well, as we don't need both vim
> recipes to provide xxd-native.
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019
To simplify meta/recipes-support/vim/vim-tiny_8.1.1240.bb which currently
has:
PROVIDES_remove = "xxd"
ALTERNATIVE_${PN}_remove = "xxd"
Can you move xxd from the .inc file and put it only in vim_8.1.1240.bb?
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:53 PM Alexander Kanavin
wrote:
> Previously vim-tiny would
Actually the BBCLASSEXTEND = "native" as well, as we don't need both vim
recipes to provide xxd-native.
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:27 PM Martin Jansa wrote:
> To simplify meta/recipes-support/vim/vim-tiny_8.1.1240.bb which currently
> has:
>
> PROVIDES_remove = "xxd"
> ALTERNATIVE_${PN}_remove =
Previously vim-tiny would include the vim recipe wholesale;
this meant that they had to be upgraded in a single transaction
which devtool cannot cope with. This thwarted the latest AUH
run in particular.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin
---
meta/recipes-support/vim/vim-tiny_8.1.1240.bb | 2 +-
