| 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
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.
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 >
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...
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"