[oe] [PATCH] dfu-programmer: USB Device Firmware Upgrade utility (special atmel-version)

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 11:32, Vitus Jensen wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 10:32, Vitus Jensen wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Vitus Jensen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Add recipes for version 0.5.2 and for the head of the SVN repository.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Vitus Jensen <vjensen at gmx.de>
> >>> ---
> >>> conf/checksums.ini                             |    4 ++++
> >>> recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_0.5.2.bb |   17 +++++++++++++++++
> >>> recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_svn.bb   |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>> create mode 100644 recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_0.5.2.bb
> >>> create mode 100644 recipes/dfu-programmer/dfu-programmer_svn.bb
> >>
> >> I know that nowerdays the checksums are inside the recipe.  But we
> >> are working on the stable/2009 branch were it isn't done this way
> >> (or not supported?).  Please accept as is.
> >
> > This patch was targetted for the stable branch? If yes please indicate this in
> > the subject of the patch. You would need to get your patch into OE.dev first
> > before it can go into stable IIRC, but I leave it to the stable developers to
> > comment on this.
> 
> Well, everything we do is done in the stable/2009 branch because we need 
> the stability.  We cherry-pick from .dev (which is getting harder because 
> of the staging changes) and add new programs and machines.  I would like 
> to publish the changes but they have to be for .dev (policy) and mostly 
> identically to what is used here (because I don't want to maintain 2 
> images for the devices).

As I said, no hard feelings. But it likely that the versions in .dev and stable
will drift away rom each other anyway.
 
> > Having one patch for .dev with the checksum in the recipe and one for stable
> > with the sum in the ini file would also be fine I think. No hard feelings on
> > this though.
> 
> Will try out checksums inside the recipe in the stable/2009 branch.  I 
> think the support for it is only depending on bitbake versions, right?

I would think it is a combination from bitbake and classes inside the OE tree,
but I can't tell for sure.

> > An updated patch for the AUTOREV issue is still needed.
> 
> Well... the repository get updates every few months, mostly to support new 
> chips.  So the possibility is high that someone needs _svn.bb because of 
> he wants to program a newer atmel and I don't feel like deciding which 
> chip support to include or not.  I've included it to make it simple to get 
> the absolute newest programmer, for me 0.5.2 is enough.

Understoof. Sadly having AUTOREV set makes it hard for different people to have
a consistent build. Therefor we normally only enable it within local.conf

> Should I drop _svn.bb or use the head revision of today?

As you prefer. I'm not going to use dfu-programmer just giving some review on
your patch.

regards
Stefan Schmidt