[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH v2] luajit: Upgrade to 2.1.0-beta3

[Khem Raj]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 5:10 PM Leo Yan <leo.yan at linaro.org> wrote:

> Hi Khem,
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 04:48:32PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On 2/22/20 9:35 PM, Leo Yan wrote:
> > > Since luajit 2.1.0-beta3 can support architecture aarch64 and the old
> > > misses to support aarch64, the patch upgrades to luajit 2.1.0-beta3.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan at linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  .../luajit/{luajit_2.0.5.bb => luajit_git.bb}        | 12
> ++++--------
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >  rename meta-oe/recipes-devtools/luajit/{luajit_2.0.5.bb =>
> luajit_git.bb} (88%)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/luajit/luajit_2.0.5.bb
> b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/luajit/luajit_git.bb
> > > similarity index 88%
> > > rename from meta-oe/recipes-devtools/luajit/luajit_2.0.5.bb
> > > rename to meta-oe/recipes-devtools/luajit/luajit_git.bb
> > > index 93128dda8..afa60dba7 100644
> > > --- a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/luajit/luajit_2.0.5.bb
> > > +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/luajit/luajit_git.bb
> > > @@ -3,12 +3,9 @@ LICENSE = "MIT"
> > >  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
> "file://COPYRIGHT;md5=10a96c93403affcc34765f4c2612bc22"
> > >  HOMEPAGE = "http://luajit.org"
> > >
> > > -PV .= "+git${SRCPV}"
> > > -SRCREV = "02b521981a1ab919ff2cd4d9bcaee80baf77dce2"
> > > -SRC_URI = "git://luajit.org/git/luajit-2.0.git;protocol=http \
> > > -
>  file://0001-Do-not-strip-automatically-this-leaves-the-stripping.patch \
> > > -           file://clang.patch \
> > > -"
> > > +PV = "2.1.0+${SRCPV}"
> >
> > I think we will endup in trouble when 2.1.0 releases, so perhaps we
> > should leave room for  sorting 2.1.0 higher than whatever we do now
> > perhaps PV = ""2.0.5+2.1.0-beta3" would be workable.
>
> This suggestion is fine for me.  But I have some concern for this since
> the naming might introduce confusion when later someone reads this
> recipe, which combines two different versions together.  So seems to
> me PV = "2.1.0-beta3" is more directive, and it can reflect the exact
> version for the building.  How about you think for this?
>

The version scheme has a purpose and that is to track package feeds and
they can not go backward for obvious reasons

The suggestion I had for you is commonly used in oe  while it might not
look simple and clean it serves the purpose


> In next version, I will remove the two patches from 'luajit/luajit'
> folder.  Also please let me know if you have any concern for this.
>
> Thanks for reviewing and suggestions!
> Leo
>
> > > +SRCREV = "8271c643c21d1b2f344e339f559f2de6f3663191"
> > > +SRC_URI = "git://
> luajit.org/git/luajit-2.0.git;protocol=http;branch=v2.1"
> > >
> > >  S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> > >
> > > @@ -90,8 +87,7 @@ FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/libluajit-5.1.a \
> > >  "
> > >  FILES_luajit-common = "${datadir}/${BPN}-${PV}"
> > >
> > > -# Aarch64/mips64/ppc/ppc64/riscv64 is not supported in this release
> > > -COMPATIBLE_HOST_aarch64 = "null"
> > > +# mips64/ppc/ppc64/riscv64 is not supported in this release
> > >  COMPATIBLE_HOST_mipsarchn32 = "null"
> > >  COMPATIBLE_HOST_mipsarchn64 = "null"
> > >  COMPATIBLE_HOST_powerpc = "null"
> > >
>