[oe] orphaned files

[Vitus Jensen]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:

> 2010/8/19 Vitus Jensen <vjensen at gmx.de>:
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>
>>> I've made a list of patch files in recipes (prefixed with file://) and
>>> compared it with the list of patch files as appear on disk.
>>> Below is the list of 645 files that do not show up in any recipe and
>>> as such can be considered as orphaned.
>>> Proposal is to remove these files after double checking that they are
>>> indeed not used.
>>>
>>> Do people agree with this? If so can I have an ack?
>>>
>>> And do we want to have a commit for every file (makes it easy to
>>> revert an error) or a big commit with all removals?
>>> (removals per dir are also possible but that process is more difficult
>>> to automate and hence not my preferred solution.
>>>
>>> Your opinion is appreciated.
>>>
>>> Frans
>>

>>> htmldoc paths_1.8.27.patch
>>
>>
>> vitus at asterix:/home/nobkp/oe.dev/recipes/htmldoc$ fgrep -C 1
>> paths_1.8.27.patch *
>> htmldoc_1.8.27.bb-SRC_URI = "http://..../htmldoc-${PV}-source.tar.bz2 \
>> htmldoc_1.8.27.bb:file://paths_1.8.27.patch"
>> htmldoc_1.8.27.bb-


....

> I thought I made a mistake in the script, but after verification I have not.
> The recipes you mention have been removed a few days ago
> http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=e5287904a9dddc8ddc0f486d8526bc8cfda427b7

But I made a mistake when I used git fetch and forgot the merge :-( 
Sorry to have caused noice.


> It there any particular reason why you want to have both the 1.8 and
> 1.9 versions in the archive?
> If so, we should revert the commit above (and then of course the patch
> file itself should not be removed either.

Well, htmldoc_1.9.x-r1571.bb fetches an older "developer snapshot" as 
www.htmldoc.org/ calls it.  The download link on that page offers 1.8.27 
as the official version.  1.8.28 is in the work.  In my opinion one should 
always offer to build the official version, not some revision from an 
arbitrary point of time.

Having said this 1.9.x-r1571 was added because it contains a feature which 
one customer required and wasn't in the official release from that time. 
I don't know whether someone at all is using that recipe now.  So it's 
only the official vs. developer version thingy.

Bye,
    Vitus

-- 
Vitus Jensen, Hannover, Germany, Universe (current)
pgp public key available from keyservers