Patchwork [PATCHv3,4/5] ti-syslink-module: Add Syslink version 02.00.00.68 Beta1

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Siddharth Heroor
Date April 9, 2011, 3:26 a.m.
Message ID <1302319620-18223-4-git-send-email-heroor@gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/2095/
State Under Review, archived
Delegated to: Denys Dmytriyenko
Headers show

Comments

Siddharth Heroor - April 9, 2011, 3:26 a.m.
From: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>


Signed-off-by: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
---
 ...-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb |   11 +++++++++++
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
Denys Dmytriyenko - April 17, 2011, 6:27 p.m.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 08:56:59AM +0530, Siddharth Heroor wrote:
> From: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
> ---
>  ...-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb |   11 +++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb

Sid,

Renaming the file with the proper versioning doesn't do any good, when you set 
the actual PV inside the recipe to the wrong value anyway - bitbake and opkg 
will sort by PV and not the recipe name! Hence, you are setting the version to 
02_00_00_68 and what happens when the real 02_00_00_68 gets released?

I did some quick editing and will send the updated patches for #4 and #5 - 
please review and provide feedback. Thanks.
Siddharth Heroor - April 18, 2011, 3:01 a.m.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 08:56:59AM +0530, Siddharth Heroor wrote:
>> From: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
>> ---
>>  ...-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb |   11 +++++++++++
>>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
>
> Sid,
>
> Renaming the file with the proper versioning doesn't do any good, when you set
> the actual PV inside the recipe to the wrong value anyway - bitbake and opkg
> will sort by PV and not the recipe name! Hence, you are setting the version to
> 02_00_00_68 and what happens when the real 02_00_00_68 gets released?
>
Hi Denys,

Thank you for correcting my understanding.

The next version of syslink is expected to be 02_00_00_69 Beta2. I
don't think there will be
a 02_00_00_68_beta2. The version numbering followed by syslink appends beta1 to
02_00_00_68. In such a case, should the next version recipe be
02_00_00_68+02_00_00_69_beta2?

> I did some quick editing and will send the updated patches for #4 and #5 -
> please review and provide feedback. Thanks.
>
> --
> Denys
>
>> diff --git a/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb b/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..f7bcb35
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>> +require ti-syslink-module.inc
>> +
>> +PV = "02_00_00_68"
>> +PVExtra = "_beta1"
>> +
>> +S = "${WORKDIR}/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}/ti/syslink/utils/hlos/knl/Linux"
>> +SYSLINK_ROOT = "${WORKDIR}/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}"
>> +
>> +SRC_URI = "http://software-dl.ti.com/dsps/dsps_public_sw/SysLink/${PV}${PVExtra}/exports/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}.tar.gz;name=syslinktarball"
>> +SRC_URI[syslinktarball.md5sum] = "468034372124f70f82b60cfb5f11c8e8"
>> +SRC_URI[syslinktarball.sha256sum] = "ed574dcb3a5477cfbc69a1c9e768d5197291cb057d19fd791e16e1c89af3e8e1"
>> --
>> 1.7.0.4
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
Denys Dmytriyenko - April 18, 2011, 3:15 a.m.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 08:31:02AM +0530, Siddharth Heroor wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 08:56:59AM +0530, Siddharth Heroor wrote:
> >> From: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
> >> ---
> >>  ...-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb |   11 +++++++++++
> >>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>  create mode 100644 recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
> >
> > Sid,
> >
> > Renaming the file with the proper versioning doesn't do any good, when you set
> > the actual PV inside the recipe to the wrong value anyway - bitbake and opkg
> > will sort by PV and not the recipe name! Hence, you are setting the version to
> > 02_00_00_68 and what happens when the real 02_00_00_68 gets released?
> >
> Hi Denys,
> 
> Thank you for correcting my understanding.
> 
> The next version of syslink is expected to be 02_00_00_69 Beta2. I
> don't think there will be
> a 02_00_00_68_beta2. The version numbering followed by syslink appends beta1 to
> 02_00_00_68. In such a case, should the next version recipe be
> 02_00_00_68+02_00_00_69_beta2?

Sid,

Are you saying the versioning schema for this component is like this:

02_00_00_68_beta1
02_00_00_69_beta2
etc?

It's quite weird... Anyway, for proper sorting and ordering of versions, it's 
still recommended to use OE's versioning policy...
Siddharth Heroor - April 18, 2011, 4:14 a.m.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 08:31:02AM +0530, Siddharth Heroor wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 08:56:59AM +0530, Siddharth Heroor wrote:
>> >> From: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  ...-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb |   11 +++++++++++
>> >>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> >>  create mode 100644 recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
>> >
>> > Sid,
>> >
>> > Renaming the file with the proper versioning doesn't do any good, when you set
>> > the actual PV inside the recipe to the wrong value anyway - bitbake and opkg
>> > will sort by PV and not the recipe name! Hence, you are setting the version to
>> > 02_00_00_68 and what happens when the real 02_00_00_68 gets released?
>> >
>> Hi Denys,
>>
>> Thank you for correcting my understanding.
>>
>> The next version of syslink is expected to be 02_00_00_69 Beta2. I
>> don't think there will be
>> a 02_00_00_68_beta2. The version numbering followed by syslink appends beta1 to
>> 02_00_00_68. In such a case, should the next version recipe be
>> 02_00_00_68+02_00_00_69_beta2?
>
> Sid,
>
> Are you saying the versioning schema for this component is like this:
>
> 02_00_00_68_beta1
> 02_00_00_69_beta2
> etc?
>
> It's quite weird... Anyway, for proper sorting and ordering of versions, it's
> still recommended to use OE's versioning policy...
Hi Denys,

Yes, the versioning for this component is exactly how you point out. I will
follow OE's versioning for any new versions I submit going forward.

>
> --
> Denys
>
>> > I did some quick editing and will send the updated patches for #4 and #5 -
>> > please review and provide feedback. Thanks.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Denys
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb b/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
>> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> index 0000000..f7bcb35
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>> >> +require ti-syslink-module.inc
>> >> +
>> >> +PV = "02_00_00_68"
>> >> +PVExtra = "_beta1"
>> >> +
>> >> +S = "${WORKDIR}/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}/ti/syslink/utils/hlos/knl/Linux"
>> >> +SYSLINK_ROOT = "${WORKDIR}/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}"
>> >> +
>> >> +SRC_URI = "http://software-dl.ti.com/dsps/dsps_public_sw/SysLink/${PV}${PVExtra}/exports/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}.tar.gz;name=syslinktarball"
>> >> +SRC_URI[syslinktarball.md5sum] = "468034372124f70f82b60cfb5f11c8e8"
>> >> +SRC_URI[syslinktarball.sha256sum] = "ed574dcb3a5477cfbc69a1c9e768d5197291cb057d19fd791e16e1c89af3e8e1"
>> >> --
>> >> 1.7.0.4
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> >> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sid
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Patch

diff --git a/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb b/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f7bcb35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/recipes/ti/ti-syslink-module_02.00.00.67+02.00.00.68beta1.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ 
+require ti-syslink-module.inc
+
+PV = "02_00_00_68"
+PVExtra = "_beta1"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}/ti/syslink/utils/hlos/knl/Linux"
+SYSLINK_ROOT = "${WORKDIR}/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}"
+
+SRC_URI = "http://software-dl.ti.com/dsps/dsps_public_sw/SysLink/${PV}${PVExtra}/exports/syslink_${PV}${PVExtra}.tar.gz;name=syslinktarball"
+SRC_URI[syslinktarball.md5sum] = "468034372124f70f82b60cfb5f11c8e8"
+SRC_URI[syslinktarball.sha256sum] = "ed574dcb3a5477cfbc69a1c9e768d5197291cb057d19fd791e16e1c89af3e8e1"