Patchwork [1/1] ncurses: Update to 5.9

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Tom Rini
Date April 6, 2011, 12:38 a.m.
Message ID <95d636004deffc0d6473c67ee9b5ce62937dc085.1302050252.git.tom_rini@mentor.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/1979/
State New, archived
Headers show

Comments

Tom Rini - April 6, 2011, 12:38 a.m.
The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
5.8 release and move to 5.9.

Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>
---
 .../{ncurses-5.7 => ncurses-5.9}/config.cache      |    0
 .../{ncurses-5.7 => ncurses-5.9}/tic-hang.patch    |    0
 .../ncurses/{ncurses_5.7.bb => ncurses_5.9.bb}     |   21 +++----------------
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-core/ncurses/{ncurses-5.7 => ncurses-5.9}/config.cache (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-core/ncurses/{ncurses-5.7 => ncurses-5.9}/tic-hang.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-core/ncurses/{ncurses_5.7.bb => ncurses_5.9.bb} (88%)
Khem Raj - April 6, 2011, 6:18 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.


there already are patches for 5.9 available too
ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz

>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>
> ---
>  .../{ncurses-5.7 => ncurses-5.9}/config.cache      |    0
>  .../{ncurses-5.7 => ncurses-5.9}/tic-hang.patch    |    0
>  .../ncurses/{ncurses_5.7.bb => ncurses_5.9.bb}     |   21 +++----------------
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>  rename meta/recipes-core/ncurses/{ncurses-5.7 => ncurses-5.9}/config.cache (100%)
>  rename meta/recipes-core/ncurses/{ncurses-5.7 => ncurses-5.9}/tic-hang.patch (100%)
>  rename meta/recipes-core/ncurses/{ncurses_5.7.bb => ncurses_5.9.bb} (88%)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.7/config.cache b/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.9/config.cache
> similarity index 100%
> rename from meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.7/config.cache
> rename to meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.9/config.cache
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.7/tic-hang.patch b/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.9/tic-hang.patch
> similarity index 100%
> rename from meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.7/tic-hang.patch
> rename to meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.9/tic-hang.patch
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.7.bb b/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.9.bb
> similarity index 88%
> rename from meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.7.bb
> rename to meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.9.bb
> index 7ab078d..9d4aa22 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.7.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.9.bb
> @@ -3,34 +3,21 @@ HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnu.org/software/ncurses/ncurses.html"
>  LICENSE = "MIT"
>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://ncurses/base/version.c;beginline=1;endline=27;md5=cbc180a8c44ca642e97c35452fab5f66"
>  SECTION = "libs"
> -PATCHDATE = "20100501"
> -PKGV = "${PV}+${PATCHDATE}"
> -PR = "r1"
> +PR = "r0"
>
>  DEPENDS = "ncurses-native"
>  DEPENDS_virtclass-native = ""
>
>  inherit autotools binconfig
>
> -SRC_URI = "${GNU_MIRROR}/ncurses/ncurses-${PV}.tar.gz;name=tarball \
> -        ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.7/ncurses-5.7-20100424-patch.sh.bz2;apply=yes;name=p20100424sh \
> -\
> -        http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/sources/ncurses-5.7-${PATCHDATE}.patch.gz;name=p20100501 \
> +SRC_URI = "${GNU_MIRROR}/ncurses/ncurses-${PV}.tar.gz \
>         file://tic-hang.patch \
>         file://config.cache \
>  "
>
> +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "8cb9c412e5f2d96bc6f459aa8c6282a1"
> +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "9046298fb440324c9d4135ecea7879ffed8546dd1b58e59430ea07a4633f563b"
>
> -#        ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.7/ncurses-5.7-${PATCHDATE}.patch.gz;name=p20100501
> -
> -SRC_URI[tarball.md5sum] = "cce05daf61a64501ef6cd8da1f727ec6"
> -SRC_URI[tarball.sha256sum] = "0a9bdea5c7de8ded5c9327ed642915f2cc380753f12d4ad120ef7da3ea3498f4"
> -SRC_URI[p20100424sh.md5sum] = "3a5f76613f0f7ec3e0e73b835bc24864"
> -SRC_URI[p20100424sh.sha256sum] = "1e9d70d2d1fe1fea471868832c52f1b9cc6065132102e49e2a3755f2f4f5be53"
> -SRC_URI[p20100501.md5sum] = "6518cfa5d45e9069a1e042468161448b"
> -SRC_URI[p20100501.sha256sum] = "a97ccc30e4bd6fbb89564f3058db0fe84bd35cfefee831556c500793b477abde"
> -
> -#PARALLEL_MAKE = ""
>  EXTRA_AUTORECONF = "-I m4"
>  CONFIG_SITE =+ "${WORKDIR}/config.cache"
>
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
Tom Rini - April 6, 2011, 2:30 p.m.
On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
> 
> 
> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz

Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
 It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
without a release but that seems to have changed now.
Khem Raj - April 6, 2011, 5:05 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>
>>
>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>
> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>

those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
so it will be of interest to keep track of it

> --
> Tom Rini
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
>
Tom Rini - April 6, 2011, 5:10 p.m.
On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>
>>>
>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>
>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>
> 
> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
> so it will be of interest to keep track of it

Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
Khem Raj - April 6, 2011, 5:26 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>>
>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>>
>>
>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
>
> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
>

yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
> --
> Tom Rini
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
>
Tom Rini - April 6, 2011, 5:35 p.m.
On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>>>
>>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
>>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
>>
>> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
>> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
>> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
>>
> 
> yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes

That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
release.
Khem Raj - April 6, 2011, 6:27 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>>>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>>>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
>>>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
>>>
>>> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
>>> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
>>> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
>>>
>>
>> yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
>
> That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
> the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
> of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
> release.
>

5.9 was released few days back so that patch might be lean for now
but I assume overtime it will get fatter

> --
> Tom Rini
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
>
Tom Rini - April 6, 2011, 6:29 p.m.
On 04/06/2011 11:27 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>>>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>>>>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>>>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>>>>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
>>>>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
>>>>
>>>> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
>>>> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
>>>> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
>>>>
>>>
>>> yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
>>
>> That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
>> the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
>> of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
>> release.
> 
> 5.9 was released few days back so that patch might be lean for now
> but I assume overtime it will get fatter

It's invalid at the moment, yes.  But you haven't explained why ncurses
needs to be in the bleeding edge bucket.  Usually this is for stuff that
hasn't really reached a stability point.
Khem Raj - April 6, 2011, 6:32 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 11:27 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>>>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>>>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>>>>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>>>>>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>>>>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>>>>>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
>>>>>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
>>>>> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
>>>>> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
>>>
>>> That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
>>> the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
>>> of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
>>> release.
>>
>> 5.9 was released few days back so that patch might be lean for now
>> but I assume overtime it will get fatter
>
> It's invalid at the moment, yes.  But you haven't explained why ncurses
> needs to be in the bleeding edge bucket.  Usually this is for stuff that
> hasn't really reached a stability point.
>
It does not have to be but those patches are cumulative fixed that are done
on top of a release. I am sure we will also run into the problems those will
fix thats why its better to keep and eye on them
> --
> Tom Rini
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
>
Richard Purdie - April 6, 2011, 6:38 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 23:18 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> > The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
> > in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
> > 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
> 
> 
> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz

Can someone summarise what the benefits of these patches are? I'm
trying to figure out whether we lose anything due to this upgrade or
not...

Cheers,

Richard
Tom Rini - April 6, 2011, 6:48 p.m.
On 04/06/2011 11:32 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> On 04/06/2011 11:27 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>>>>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>>>>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>>>>>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>>>>>>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>>>>>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>>>>>>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
>>>>>>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
>>>>>> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
>>>>>> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
>>>>
>>>> That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
>>>> the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
>>>> of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
>>>> release.
>>>
>>> 5.9 was released few days back so that patch might be lean for now
>>> but I assume overtime it will get fatter
>>
>> It's invalid at the moment, yes.  But you haven't explained why ncurses
>> needs to be in the bleeding edge bucket.  Usually this is for stuff that
>> hasn't really reached a stability point.
>>
> It does not have to be but those patches are cumulative fixed that are done
> on top of a release. I am sure we will also run into the problems those will
> fix thats why its better to keep and eye on them

That can be said for just about every recipe we have.  It sounds like
you're suggesting we need _svn recipe or similar recipe for ncurses as
well.  I still don't see why ncurses is special in this regard and ask
that when you see a worthwhile patch for ncurses 5.9 that you do another
pull request.  I'm just trying to keep oe-core in sync with
openembedded.master.
Tom Rini - April 6, 2011, 7:20 p.m.
On 04/06/2011 11:38 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 23:18 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>
>>
>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
> 
> Can someone summarise what the benefits of these patches are? I'm
> trying to figure out whether we lose anything due to this upgrade or
> not...

The patches we applied to 5.7 are part of the 5.8 release and 5.9 of
course replaces 5.8.  The invisible-island.net patch sets are things
taken from the official source repo and put out there for use.
Khem Raj - April 6, 2011, 8:54 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 23:18 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> > The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>> > in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>> > 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>
>>
>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>
> Can someone summarise what the benefits of these patches are? I'm
> trying to figure out whether we lose anything due to this upgrade or
> not...
>

ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/README

> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
Khem Raj - April 6, 2011, 8:56 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 11:32 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2011 11:27 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>>>>>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>>>>>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>>>>>>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>>>>>>>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>>>>>>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>>>>>>>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
>>>>>>>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
>>>>>>> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
>>>>>>> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
>>>>>
>>>>> That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
>>>>> the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
>>>>> of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
>>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> 5.9 was released few days back so that patch might be lean for now
>>>> but I assume overtime it will get fatter
>>>
>>> It's invalid at the moment, yes.  But you haven't explained why ncurses
>>> needs to be in the bleeding edge bucket.  Usually this is for stuff that
>>> hasn't really reached a stability point.
>>>
>> It does not have to be but those patches are cumulative fixed that are done
>> on top of a release. I am sure we will also run into the problems those will
>> fix thats why its better to keep and eye on them
>
> That can be said for just about every recipe we have.  It sounds like
> you're suggesting we need _svn recipe or similar recipe for ncurses as
> well.  I still don't see why ncurses is special in this regard and ask
> that when you see a worthwhile patch for ncurses 5.9 that you do another
> pull request.  I'm just trying to keep oe-core in sync with
> openembedded.master.
>

Those patches are not same as all patches that would be applied to say
svn version these are fixes on top of a release e.g. 5.9 I was merely
suggesting that your upgrade patch is fine please see if there already
are some fixes on top of 5.9 that we need
thats all


> --
> Tom Rini
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
>
Richard Purdie - April 6, 2011, 9:16 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 10:35 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
> >>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
> >>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
> >>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
> >>>>
> >>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
> >>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
> >>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
> >>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
> >>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
> >>
> >> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
> >> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
> >> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
> >>
> > 
> > yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
> 
> That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
> the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
> of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
> release.

It sounds like these patches are more like tracking an SCM rather than a
source of specific security patches or critical updates.

I think it might be wise to note this location in the recipe as a
comment (can someone please send an updated patch) but I don't think we
should be including these patches by default, particular if upstream are
making regular releases again.

Cheers,

Richard
Tom Rini - April 7, 2011, 12:35 a.m.
On 04/06/2011 02:16 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 10:35 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
>>>>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
>>>>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
>>>>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
>>>>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
>>>>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
>>>>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
>>>>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
>>>>
>>>> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
>>>> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
>>>> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
>>>>
>>>
>>> yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
>>
>> That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
>> the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
>> of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
>> release.
> 
> It sounds like these patches are more like tracking an SCM rather than a
> source of specific security patches or critical updates.
> 
> I think it might be wise to note this location in the recipe as a
> comment (can someone please send an updated patch) but I don't think we
> should be including these patches by default, particular if upstream are
> making regular releases again.

I'll go v2 it

Patch

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.7/config.cache b/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.9/config.cache
similarity index 100%
rename from meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.7/config.cache
rename to meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.9/config.cache
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.7/tic-hang.patch b/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.9/tic-hang.patch
similarity index 100%
rename from meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.7/tic-hang.patch
rename to meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses-5.9/tic-hang.patch
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.7.bb b/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.9.bb
similarity index 88%
rename from meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.7.bb
rename to meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.9.bb
index 7ab078d..9d4aa22 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.7.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/ncurses/ncurses_5.9.bb
@@ -3,34 +3,21 @@  HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnu.org/software/ncurses/ncurses.html"
 LICENSE = "MIT"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://ncurses/base/version.c;beginline=1;endline=27;md5=cbc180a8c44ca642e97c35452fab5f66"
 SECTION = "libs"
-PATCHDATE = "20100501"
-PKGV = "${PV}+${PATCHDATE}"
-PR = "r1"
+PR = "r0"
 
 DEPENDS = "ncurses-native"
 DEPENDS_virtclass-native = ""
 
 inherit autotools binconfig
 
-SRC_URI = "${GNU_MIRROR}/ncurses/ncurses-${PV}.tar.gz;name=tarball \
-        ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.7/ncurses-5.7-20100424-patch.sh.bz2;apply=yes;name=p20100424sh \
-\
-        http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/sources/ncurses-5.7-${PATCHDATE}.patch.gz;name=p20100501 \
+SRC_URI = "${GNU_MIRROR}/ncurses/ncurses-${PV}.tar.gz \
         file://tic-hang.patch \
         file://config.cache \
 "
 
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "8cb9c412e5f2d96bc6f459aa8c6282a1"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "9046298fb440324c9d4135ecea7879ffed8546dd1b58e59430ea07a4633f563b"
 
-#        ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.7/ncurses-5.7-${PATCHDATE}.patch.gz;name=p20100501 
-
-SRC_URI[tarball.md5sum] = "cce05daf61a64501ef6cd8da1f727ec6"
-SRC_URI[tarball.sha256sum] = "0a9bdea5c7de8ded5c9327ed642915f2cc380753f12d4ad120ef7da3ea3498f4"
-SRC_URI[p20100424sh.md5sum] = "3a5f76613f0f7ec3e0e73b835bc24864"
-SRC_URI[p20100424sh.sha256sum] = "1e9d70d2d1fe1fea471868832c52f1b9cc6065132102e49e2a3755f2f4f5be53"
-SRC_URI[p20100501.md5sum] = "6518cfa5d45e9069a1e042468161448b"
-SRC_URI[p20100501.sha256sum] = "a97ccc30e4bd6fbb89564f3058db0fe84bd35cfefee831556c500793b477abde"
-
-#PARALLEL_MAKE = ""
 EXTRA_AUTORECONF = "-I m4"
 CONFIG_SITE =+ "${WORKDIR}/config.cache"