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

[Koen Kooi]

Op 20 okt. 2011, om 14:38 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> 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?

That's what stable releases are for, but I don't see a release for OE-core, do you? I see a poky release, but not an OE-core release.