[OE-core] [CONSOLIDATED PULL 14/16] distro-tracking: update data for some toolchain recipes

[Martin Jansa]

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<raj.khem at gmail.com>  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).

Regards,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20111020/4ac4f6b6/attachment-0002.sig>