Op 20 okt. 2011, om 16:36 heeft Martin Jansa het volgende geschreven: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 03:25:52PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 16:33 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: >>> On 10/19/2011 12:00 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 16:30, Khem Raj<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>>> Many upstreams we can't track if updates are required automagically, so >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> need a place to record when the last manual check was, also possible >>>>>>>> reasons >>>>>>>> why we should not update to newer versions, ... >>>>> >>>>> hmm manual check means it has to be done manually is there any thing >>>>> that needs it ? >>>>> >>>>> I think unless they are distro specific which seems not since they are >>>>> in oe-core >>>>> they could exist in recipes thats my opinion. >>>> >>>> I agree that this should be put into the recipes. Besides this allows >>>> for checking if it was updated when the version has been updated. >>>> >>>> If done right, when updating the version this data will be updated >>>> together. I see no change in the amount of changes. >>>> >>>> A plus of this choice is it will be more difficult to forget to update >>>> that info. This happened in last qt update for an example. >>>> >>> >>> This may need to be something that the TSC brings up, possibly we can >>> talk about it in Prague next week. >> >> So just to give some background here, the information in those files was >> added by Yocto people to give some idea of the update status of various >> recipes. This included when the version was last checked/updated for >> recipes which we can't automate that process for, when certain cleanup >> checks were made, what the general state of the recipe was and who on >> the Yocto team was specifically looking after given recipes. >> >> When it was discussed, some of it was Yocto specific, some of it wasn't >> and popular opinion was against it going into the recipes themselves. I >> was ok with that given we have the pn- overrides and can handle the >> problem that way just fine. >> >> OE-Core happened and we kept the data with OE-Core at least for now. We >> have several options: >> >> a) Keep the data where it is >> b) Merge the data into the recipes >> c) Move the data out of OE-Core >> >> Since a lot of that data is fairly Yocto process specific, it may make >> sense to move it over to meta-yocto... > > I don't like "global" files where many people should maintain their info > and it's so easy to forgot when it's somewhere else then real changes > (like it was with checksums.ini and sane-src*.ini). > > So I vote for b) Merge the data into the recipes, only problem with this > is that if we have 2 versions of foo (foo_1.0.bb, foo_git.bb) without > any foo.inc, will we create foo.inc just for distro-tracking info? Maybe > we should and move at least DESCRIPTION and similar variables too. > > c) moving it to meta-yocto will probably make distro-tracking info even > more outdated as sometimes different people then who did upgrade in > oe-core will have to update distro-tracking info in this layer (this is > also the case now sometimes, but with distro-tracking info in recipe we > can try better to update it with upgrades).
I agree completely with Martin. regards, Koen _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
