[oe] cleaning recipes

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/8/16 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
> On (15/08/10 23:25), Mike Westerhof wrote:
>> Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> ...
>> > Anyway, if there are issues because of this action, or if you feel
>> > removal of a recipe was not in accordance with the TSC guidelines, let
>> > me know and I'll repair.
>>
>> Well, here's the first one, docbook-sgml-dtd-3.1-native, full log below:
>
>
> heh I am running into same problem  when building from scratch :) This is my temporary fix that I am
> building with now at least it goes thru parse stage. I havent looked the
> effects of bumping up this dependency version yet. May be its ok may be it
> is wrong.
>
> diff --git a/recipes/docbook-utils/docbook-utils-native_0.6.14.bb
> b/recipes/docbook-utils/docbook-utils-native_0.6.14.bb
> index 595aa50..52c2ebb 100644
> --- a/recipes/docbook-utils/docbook-utils-native_0.6.14.bb
> +++ b/recipes/docbook-utils/docbook-utils-native_0.6.14.bb
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ LICENSE = "GPL"
>
>  PR = "r2"
>
> -DEPENDS = "openjade-native sgmlspl-native docbook-dsssl-stylesheets-native docbook-sgml-dtd-3.1-native"
> +DEPENDS = "openjade-native sgmlspl-native docbook-dsssl-stylesheets-native docbook-sgml-dtd-4.4-native"
>
>  SRC_URI = "ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/docbook-tools/new-trials/SOURCES/docbook-utils-${PV}.tar.gz"
>  S = "${WORKDIR}/docbook-utils-${PV}"
>

Seems a nice patch to me.
If desired also feel free to revert my removal patch.
Apparently I overlooked the case where recipes could DEPEND on
specific versions of a recipe.

There are probably a few more cases of this (easily identified as
bitbake will complain immediately if it bumps into one of these).
I'll peek at it tonight.

And wrt everyone hit by this: my apologies.
but hey: that is the risk if you want to live on the edge

Have fun! Frans