[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH 2/3] cppzmq: bump version 4.2.3 => 4.3.1

[Vincent Prince]

Martin,

Thanks for precisions, I will update PV to 4.3.1 in V2
By the way, it's first time I submit a patch series, should  changelog be
in each patch for should I use --cover option to put them all in 0/3?

Best regards

Le mer. 3 avr. 2019 à 14:03, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:36:24PM +0200, Vincent Prince wrote:
> > Adrien,
> >
> > What I'm not sure to understand is in which case we use "_git.bb"
> instead
> > of having PV in filename.
>
> The PV in filename is just another way for setting PV variable (instead
> of setting it inside the recipe). This isn't relevant to what Adrian
> requested and I would keep the filename as is.
>
> > If we use a release version, shouldn't we point to
> > https://github.com/zeromq/cppzmq/archive/v4.3.0.tar.gz?
>
> Definitely don't use github archives, they are regenerated from time to
> time with different checksums, either you can use developer uploaded
> tarballs (some projects on github provides them as well) or use git
> fetcher with the SRCREV pointing the the tag.
>
> > And if we use git version, shouldn't we specify git commit hash to remove
> > any ambiguity between PV and SRCREV?
>
> With git bitbake fetcher (git:// in SRC_URI) you always need to specify
> SRCREV, because that's the only thing which defines what "version" of
> the source will be fetched.
>
> PV in this case is only to give this SRCREV some human readable (and
> sortable) versioning scheme. And that's what users will see when
> installing/upgrading the built packages, so it's important to set it
> correctly.
>
> +git${SRCPV} in PV is usually used to signify that the SRCREV points to
> commit a bit newer than the "base version" in this case 4.3.1 and in
> this case this +git${SRCPV} is unnecessary if the SRCREV matches exactly
> with 4.3.1 tag.
>
> > Do you know any convention is specified somewhere?
>
> I don't think it's spelled anywhere in wiki.
>