[OE-core] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.bbclass: respect MACHINE_KERNEL_PR

[Koen Kooi]

Op 20 okt. 2011, om 13:21 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 08:23 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 28 sep. 2011, om 22:04 heeft Otavio Salvador het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 16:50, Richard Purdie
>>> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> This patch improves the current situation and I don't foresee the
>>>>> autoPR code working soon
>>>> 
>>>> Which is why we need to switch to that model and shake out the issues
>>>> sooner than later. Enough is enough with the PR madness and we need to
>>>> get to grips and fix it.
>>> 
>>> I fully agree this is the way to go but this doesn't mean we ought to
>>> hold this patch until all this happens. This patch allows the removal
>>> of the kernel.bbclass from meta-oe so reducing the delta between
>>> oe-core and meta-oe.
>> 
>> So a month later and no sign of the mythical working
>> auto-PR-incrementer or work on it.
> 
> A month where we were stabilising for a release. Its on the 1.2 feature
> list and as it happens I've been hearing questions about what is needed
> here.
> 
>> So can this patch go in? It would mean we can drop kernel.bbclass
>> from meta-oe.
> 
> I *HATE* this PR bumping stuff. I've just been told we likely need to
> bump the PR for anything using libGL which once again shows that build
> system basically failing to automate building things.
> 
> So I'm drawing a line here and no, we can't take this. If its fine to
> expect people to bump PR values manually for lib* changes, its fine for
> kernels too. I'd suggest you do drop this from meta-oe and we start
> building up pressure for the problem to get fixed properly rather than
> letting people wallpaper over the cracks.

I have products to ship, so treating meta-oe as a plaything and break this for the sake of breaking it is unacceptable. I'll let oe-core have the monopoly on high-qualitily, but broken metadata.