[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] smartmontools: import from OE classic

[Philip Balister]

On 05/03/2013 11:09 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 03:42:30PM +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>> On Friday 03 May 2013 16:30:17 Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net>wrote:
>>>>> I agree we should try to keep only one version of each recipe in
>>>>> software
>>>>> layers, however I figure it makes it easier for people to carry their
>>>>> own
>>>>> versions of recipes in distro layers (particularly older, which may be
>>>>> required in certain circumstances) if we do keep inc files where they
>>>>> already exist.
>>>
>>>> Can people raise their hand if they want to have a different version of
>>>> smartmontools in their layer?
>>>
>>> i think it would be nice to have a policy for that. i am going to send a
>>> couple of recipes for new components, and it would be good to know what's
>>> the agreed 'policy' for .inc file. 
>>
>> We probably should have a stated policy, yes. AFAIK the current perhaps 
>> unstated policy is to keep the inc file if it existed in OE-Classic.
> 
> I don't have strong opinion about keeping/loosing .inc files, but
> I've removed couple of .inc files when importing stuff from OE-Classic
> in cases where .inc is relatively short (like in smartmontools). 
> 
> I would keep .inc when it's reused in different recipes or really
> long/complicated (like mesa.inc).
> 
> We also have policy that there is only one version per recipe if
> possible.

I agree with Martin. I've dropped some .inc files for recipes I worry
about also.

Philip

> 
>>> in fact, it's not even clear to me why
>>> have .inc file is easier to carry different version in distro layers. well
>>> it's just a 'large' recipe to carry over..
>>
>> If you carry over the whole recipe rather than "require recipes-
>> xyz/foo/foo.inc", then you won't get any improvements to the non-version-
>> specific parts of the recipe when the base layer updates in the future.
>>
>> Alternatively if you "require recipes-xyz/foo/foo_6.5.bb" because there is no 
>> .inc, then your recipe will definitely break the next time the recipe in the 
>> base layer is upgraded, plus you may have to override more parts of the recipe 
>> that are specific to a different version than the one you are building.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Paul Eggleton
>> Intel Open Source Technology Centre
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20130503/df631134/attachment-0002.sig>