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

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 13:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 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.

Its not as if there isn't another way to handle this, it is a little
harder work I agree. This isn't breaking for the sake of breaking
either, its applying a bit of pressure to ensure we fix an underlying
problem we've had for a long time. I don't think fixing it will be easy,
I do think we need to though.

Also, the idea never was to have everyone using bleeding edge for
shipping products. This is what stable releases are for?

Cheers,

Richard