[oe] Kernel recipes with broken PRs now

[Phil Blundell]

On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 15:06 +0200, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> I don't get the use case for MACHINE_KERNEL_PR, can someone explain?
> 
> Why would a machine or local.conf want to force rebuild by increasing
> this MACHINE_KERNEL_PR variable??

I think the idea is to rebuild all the module binaries if the kernel
configuration changes in some incompatible way.  However, this does seem
like a curious way of achieving it; I would have thought that the
existing "kernel-abiversion" mechanism, or some extension of that, would
solve the problem without the need to introduce a new user-controlled
global variable.

It does also seem fairly unfortunate that, judging from the first mail
in this thread, the patch in question has been landed in such a way as
to effectively (and silently) rewind PR to r0 for any kernel packages
that haven't been specifically adapted to work with it.

p.