[oe] [PATCH 8/8] xz: add xz package

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 01:19:29PM +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 13:51 +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> It would indeed. Can i somehow say
>> file1: SRC="http:://one.ext/one.tar.xz"
>>        SRC[md5sum]=md5
>>        SRC[sha256sum]=sha256
>>        or, perhaps it's the basename if there was no ;name=
>>        SRC[one.tar.xz.md5sum]=md5
>>        SRC[one.tar.xz.sha256sum]=sha256
>> file2: SRC="git://two"
>> inc: FOO_SRC ?= SRC
>>      SRC_URI += FOO_SRC
>
>I don't think this needs to be as complicated as you are making it.  You
>should be able to simply move your original SRC_URI verbatim to the .inc
>file, i.e.:
>
>SRC_URI = "http://tukaani.org/xz/xz-${PV}.tar.bz2;name=xz"
>
>and then, in the individual .bb files for each version, write:
>
>SRC_URI[xz.md5sum] = ...
>
>There's no requirement for the two things to be in the same file.  If
>you need to add other things like patches to the SRC_URI for a specific
>version, you can just write:
>
>SRC_URI += "file://..."
>
>in the .bb file in question.

But that would clash with _git, wouldn't it, unless, and only if this
exact sequence would be used:
.inc:=S ?= ${WORKDIR}/xz-${PV}
.inc:=SRC_URI=http
0815.bb:PV=0814+0815foo
0815.bb:require .inc
0815.bb:SRC_URI+=patch1
git.bb:S=${WORKDIR}/git
git.bb:require .inc
git.bb:SRC_URI=git

which we can obey to in this case, but it somehow feels brittle altough
it should work out fine in practise, i think.
>
>> Revised patch is attached, but:
>> it works for the 4.999beta9 version (literally, since that's how
>> upstream calls the tarball; Is this a problem with the version-naming
>> like Koon indicates?) 
>
>It rather depends on what upstream are going to do next.  If "4.999" is
>the number that they are using for pre-releases leading up to 5.0, and
>everything in the 4.999 series is going to be a beta (i.e. they do
>4.999.8beta, 4.999.9beta, 4.999.10beta, 5.0) then it is probably fine as
>it stands.  But, if there is any risk that "4.999.9beta" might be
>followed at some point by a version called just "4.999.9", or even
>"4.999", then that would be a problem because the latter version will
>sort lower than the former.

ACK, exactly. I follow Koon on this.
>
>> since: $ ls -a ../sources/git/ctrl.tukaani.org.xz.git/
>> .  ..  1  .git
>> 
>> "1" ?!
>
>That is rather weird.  I can't see any obvious cause for that from a
>quick inspection of the files you attached.

Just try it out, that package shouldn't interfere with any existing
recipe.
To my untrained eyes it sounds like a glitch somewhere in infrastructure
and not in those recipes, but YMV alot from mine in this respect :)
Insights?

TIA && cheers,
Bernhard