[OE-core] [PATCH] [PATCH] raptor: add recipe

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner at nanometrics.ca>

> Hi Koen, Frans,
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Op 28 jul. 2011, om 05:38 heeft Ben Gardiner het volgende geschreven:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner at nanometrics.ca>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini at mentor.com>
> >>
> >> This recipe is a port of recipes/raptor/raptor_1.4.21.bb from
> >> git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded, commits
> >> 01e8e9f325d8d251e852e7a5704b5fe50880e1ad 'raptor: added recipe' and
> >> f1d24b5a986233f869364eb109476f5184e76d10 'raptor: add libxml2 DEPENDS'
> >
> > Why does this need to be in OE-core and not in some other layer? It
> doesn't look so core to me, especially since nothing in oe-core (or
> meta-oe/efl/gnome for that matter) depends on it
>
> Because oe-core's meta/recipes-support (naively) seemed like a
> reasonable place for it. I would be happy to re-spin the patch for
> locating it in any layer. Please advise me.
>

oe-core is only for core recipes. Not sure about the exact definition, but I
suspect it is something like "recipes that (virtually) everybody needs".
I'm not sure about layer policies, but maybe this could go to meta-oe.

>
> It's true that nothing depends on it. As Frans mentions later it's
> only dependent in oe.dev is flickrcurl. Raptor is both a library and a
> utility; we use the latter so raptor itself is a dependency of our
> images.
>
> >>
> >> The recipe was modified by adding a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner at nanometrics.ca>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Not tested in the oe-core + meta-openembedded et. al. layers.
>
> I'm sorry for the confusion -- this recipe is/was tested in oe.dev and
> 2011.03-maintenance branches.
>

I'd say that before submitting you should as a minimum test that it builds
properly in the layer you are submitting it (so e.g. we're sure all depends
are there).

>
> > So why are you sending it if it isn't tested?
> >
> >> We are not
> >> ready yet to migrate from the 2011.03-maintenance branch. This patch is
> >> proposed for inclusion in oe-core so that we can meet the new policy
> >> requirements for inclusion in the 2011.03-maintenance branch
> >
> > Where does it say it's OK to do a pull request for untested recipes? And
> where does it say it needs to be in OE-core first?
>
> My understanding of Tom's post to the oe.dev mailing list is that
> commits in pull-requests for 2011.03 need to first be oe-core or one
> of its layers.
>

No idea here.
But why would add a patch for LIC_FILES_CHECKSUM in the maintenance tree.
If I recall correctly those are not needed in 2011.03 (but if it is and it
is missing from the recipe, I think it should be added, if not, probably
leave the recipe as is).

>
> In Message-ID: <4DFA7108.5020103 at mentor.com> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at
> 5:09 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini at mentor.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As part of this weeks TSC meeting, an agenda item was brought up about
> > the 2011.03-maintenance branch and oe-core / etc.  I have now updated
> > the policy about where changes need to be before they can be included in
> > 2011.03-maintenance to include being in oe-core / meta-oe or other
> > relevant public layer instead of being only in the oe.dev master branch.
> >  This is not a policy change, but a clarification of what was there
> > previously.  Thanks all!
> >
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
> <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2011/7/28 Ben Gardiner <bengardiner at nanometrics.ca>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>
> >
> > Eh, yes and no.
> >
> > I did write the original recipe and commited it on 14 aug 2010 with a
> > sign-off message.
> > As such this got my signoff, but I am not sure the signoff should be
> > repeated if this moved to oe-core.
>
> Fair enough. It is your Sign-off to give or take.
>
> I was following the patch message guidelines. "Example: Importaing
> from Elsewhere Modified" in particular:
>
>
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Example:_Importing_from_Elsewhere_Modified
>

Ah ok, Those guidelines are fairly new and I was not too aware of them. If
it is in accordance with the guidelines it is fine with me to keep them.
I was mainly triggered by the signed-off lines at the beginning of your
message (which I don't think are in accordance to the above mentioned
guidelines).
The only concern I have is that the sign-off would be interpreted as my
blessing for this patch in oe-core. If it only is used as an indicator of
the origin or as a statement that I released and was entitled to release the
original stuff, that is ok (as that is still appropriate).

>
> I will remove your Sign-off in v2.
>
> > My sign-off at that time is definitely not to be used as a suggestion it
> is
> > ok for oe-core (actually I feel this is not something for oe-core)
>
> Understood -- I am happy to re-spin for inclusion in any layer. Please
> advise.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ben Gardiner
>
> ---
> Nanometrics Inc.
> http://www.nanometrics.ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20110728/7b5e08d5/attachment-0002.html>