On 07/27/2016 04:30 PM, Sergey 'Jin' Bostandzhyan wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 04:06:19PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
just wanted to say that we are facing the same issue with PRServer and
live updates, looking forward to a possible solution.
You can try packagefeed-stability.bbc
Hi Robert,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 04:06:19PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> >just wanted to say that we are facing the same issue with PRServer and
> >live updates, looking forward to a possible solution.
>
> You can try packagefeed-stability.bbclass on master branch now, and please
> feel free to
Hi Sergey,
On 05/18/2016 08:27 PM, Sergey 'Jin' Bostandzhyan wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to say that we are facing the same issue with PRServer and
live updates, looking forward to a possible solution.
You can try packagefeed-stability.bbclass on master branch now, and please
feel free to let me k
In addition, the introduction of PR server also increased the load on the
OpenPLi "feed" servers with a few terabytes per month. Luckily, bandwidth is
cheap nowadays :)
On 18-05-16 08:09, Robert Yang wrote:
The PRServer bumps PR according to do_package's task hash, that
causes it bumps *all*
On 05/19/2016 06:17 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 18:12 +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
On 05/19/2016 05:45 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
To be really clear, OE-Core will not have a different signature
policy
on release branches since that differing policy would break user
expectation
On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:37:03 Joshua G Lock wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 18:12 +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> > On 05/19/2016 05:45 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > Users are free to set their own policies, the system was designed
> > > to do
> > > that. If WindRiver wants to have a much more permissi
On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 18:12 +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
>
> On 05/19/2016 05:45 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > Users are free to set their own policies, the system was designed
> > to do
> > that. If WindRiver wants to have a much more permissive policy, I'm
> > more than happy for them to do so.
> T
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:45:11PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 05/19/2016 04:47 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > As the commit says, small change in package.bbclass also causes all
> > packages to
> > be recreated with PR bump even when the content is most likely the same.
>
> That
On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 18:12 +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 05:45 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > To be really clear, OE-Core will not have a different signature
> > policy
> > on release branches since that differing policy would break user
> > expectations and also wouldn't get tested apa
On 05/19/2016 05:45 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
The bottom line is that the system is setup to be sensitive to changes.
Where we've had cases where we haven't reacted to changes, people have
complained and we've ended up making sure we do react to them. The
patch you reference was one such case
The bottom line is that the system is setup to be sensitive to changes.
Where we've had cases where we haven't reacted to changes, people have
complained and we've ended up making sure we do react to them. The
patch you reference was one such case where users complained we didn't
react enough.
Yo
Hi Martin,
On 05/19/2016 04:47 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
As the commit says, small change in package.bbclass also causes all packages to
be recreated with PR bump even when the content is most likely the same.
That is another case we need work on.
Fixing bug in gcc may at least provide differ
On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 10:47 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> As the commit says, small change in package.bbclass also causes all
> packages to be recreated with PR bump even when the content is most
> likely the same.
>
> Fixing bug in gcc may at least provide different binaries so it might
> be usefu
As the commit says, small change in package.bbclass also causes all
packages to be recreated with PR bump even when the content is most likely
the same.
Fixing bug in gcc may at least provide different binaries so it might be
useful to upgrade them on target (or at least distinguish if they were
a
On 05/19/2016 10:33 AM, Robert Yang wrote:
Hi Martin,
I found this patch in the bug:
http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta/lib/oe/sstatesig.py?id=336a7897e39b9e42dcfcba9e2520ea96b0c6a8d6
And this patch causes another inconsistent:
PACKAGE_CLASSES = "package_ipk"
1) Af
Hi Martin,
I found this patch in the bug:
http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta/lib/oe/sstatesig.py?id=336a7897e39b9e42dcfcba9e2520ea96b0c6a8d6
Too many PR bumps and rebuildings are caused by this patch. I'm
not very sure about what this patch tries to fix, it seems that
it
Hi,
just wanted to say that we are facing the same issue with PRServer and
live updates, looking forward to a possible solution.
Kind regards,
Sergey
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:31:09PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
>
>
> On 05/18/2016 05:20 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:03:
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:31:09PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
>
>
> On 05/18/2016 05:20 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:03:58PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> On 05/18/2016 03:39 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >>> See:
> >>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/
On 05/18/2016 05:20 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:03:58PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 05/18/2016 03:39 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
See:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5970
Just using recipe checksum wont work, because the main reason for PR bu
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:03:58PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 05/18/2016 03:39 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > See:
> > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5970
> >
> > Just using recipe checksum wont work, because the main reason for PR bumps
> > is to
> > automatica
Hi Joshua,
Thanks, I read packagefeed-stability.bbclass just now. If
we can change PRserver's checksum to consider RDEPENDS only
(or make it optional) I will run a testing on that script.
// Robert
On 05/18/2016 03:34 PM, Joshua G Lock wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 14:09 +0800, Robe
Hi Martin,
On 05/18/2016 03:39 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
See:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5970
Just using recipe checksum wont work, because the main reason for PR bumps is to
automatically upgrade the packages when one of the dependencies changes .so
version, which you won'
See:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5970
Just using recipe checksum wont work, because the main reason for PR bumps
is to automatically upgrade the packages when one of the dependencies
changes .so version, which you won't detect from recipe checksum of the app
which is just usi
Hi Robert,
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 14:09 +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> The PRServer bumps PR according to do_package's task hash, that
> causes it bumps *all* packages' PR when recipes like pseudo-native
> and rpm-native is changed. It is a very bad user experience when we
> run "smart/opkg upgrade" o
The PRServer bumps PR according to do_package's task hash, that
causes it bumps *all* packages' PR when recipes like pseudo-native
and rpm-native is changed. It is a very bad user experience when we
run "smart/opkg upgrade" on running target, for example, when we apply
a CVE patch to pseudo-native
25 matches
Mail list logo
