<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 18:16, Richard Purdie <<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org">richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Sun, 2019-12-15 at 17:45 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:<br>
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 17:28, Bruce Ashfield <<br>
> <a href="mailto:bruce.ashfield@gmail.com" target="_blank">bruce.ashfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > Another problem is that devtool isn't able to upgrade the main<br>
> > variant properly with this included. I'd rather split it it into a<br>
> > different recipe, if someone confirms the need.<br>
> > <br>
> > It is definitely needed.<br>
> <br>
> Right, then I'll rework this patch to split the dev version into a<br>
> separate recipe with a shared .inc.<br>
<br>
Can we teach devtool to be able to handle this?<br>
<br>
In the back of my mind I'd still like to get poky-bleeding back running<br>
to try and get earlier warning of upstream breakage. <br>
<br>
This sets a precedent of disallowing devupstream in recipes which I<br>
don't really like the idea of :/<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe a quick fix would be to tell devtool to ignore devupstream, I'll take a look tomorrow.</div><div><br></div><div>Alex<br></div></div></div>