| Submitter | Khem Raj |
|---|---|
| Date | July 31, 2012, 6:56 p.m. |
| Message ID | <1343760977-3290-6-git-send-email-raj.khem@gmail.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/33445/ |
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
Comments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 31-07-12 20:56, Khem Raj schreef: > This class is angstrom specific so lets move it to more appropriate > layer Ehm, it was put in meta-oe on request so other distros could use it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFQGCzxMkyGM64RGpERAu0zAJ0bciMt4Kasz75bkgLimir+dy3vJACfRut3 oxcvlVptcA34vNfJjK8jwmo= =RLeD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: > Op 31-07-12 20:56, Khem Raj schreef: >> This class is angstrom specific so lets move it to more appropriate >> layer > > Ehm, it was put in meta-oe on request so other distros could use it. A version of this with a different control interface is already in oe-core. See oe-core/meta/classes/blacklist.bbclass.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:07:29PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Op 31-07-12 20:56, Khem Raj schreef: > > This class is angstrom specific so lets move it to more appropriate > > layer > > Ehm, it was put in meta-oe on request so other distros could use it. SHR is now compatible with oe-core copy too, so fine with me.
yes I think SHR was one besides angstrom and it has removed that dependency. We can keep it in meta-oe just rename it to something else. On 7/31/12, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:07:29PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Op 31-07-12 20:56, Khem Raj schreef: >> > This class is angstrom specific so lets move it to more appropriate >> > layer >> >> Ehm, it was put in meta-oe on request so other distros could use it. > > SHR is now compatible with oe-core copy too, so fine with me. > > -- > Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 31-07-12 20:56, Khem Raj schreef: > This class is angstrom specific so lets move it to more appropriate > layer As said before, this class isn't angstrom specific and it won't move back to angstrom. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFQHYe2MkyGM64RGpERAq3RAKCUTjgqXF4KVzxnHXDPneWwlG312QCgrcN3 +83iM4uRs2q3rI3aLlsswHI= =++x/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: > > As said before, this class isn't angstrom specific and it won't move back to > angstrom. koen no one else is using it other than angstrom. but it interferes with similar class from OE-Core so essentially you want to keep a feature thats just used by angstrom in a non angstrom layer? doent sound logical to me. Would it be acceptable if angstrom used this feature from OE-Core as well ? then it will remove the usecase completely.
On 08/04/2012 04:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: >> >> As said before, this class isn't angstrom specific and it won't move back to >> angstrom. > > koen no one else is using it other than angstrom. but it interferes > with similar class from OE-Core > so essentially you want to keep a feature thats just used by angstrom > in a non angstrom layer? > doent sound logical to me. Would it be acceptable if angstrom used > this feature from OE-Core as well ? > then it will remove the usecase completely. If Angstrom is the only user and no one else is asking for it, it is Angstrom specific for all intents and purposes. Philip > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 04-08-12 22:47, Khem Raj schreef: > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> > wrote: >> >> As said before, this class isn't angstrom specific and it won't move >> back to angstrom. > > koen no one else is using it other than angstrom. but it interferes with > similar class from OE-Core I guess oe-core people need to be less anti-social with other layers then and provide migration patches. > so essentially you want to keep a feature thats just used by angstrom in > a non angstrom layer? No, I want the class deleted. But as I keep saying, the class was moved to meta-oe on request because is was most certainly not angstrom specific. And as angstrom maintainer I have no intent to add it back to the angstrom layer. So your commit message is entirely wrong. > doent sound logical to me. Would it be acceptable if angstrom used this > feature from OE-Core as well ? then it will remove the usecase > completely. I keep waiting on the person that pushed it to oe-core to provide patches for distro layers using the old functionality, see above. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFQHlvtMkyGM64RGpERAlM+AJ0QIjUUJazAAA39xptb5OTVbU7GkQCgumJT FFtbzZWd8sI4w3gPZJTLeho= =mlaZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: > No, I want the class deleted. But as I keep saying, the class was moved to > meta-oe on request because is was most certainly not angstrom specific. And > as angstrom maintainer I have no intent to add it back to the angstrom > layer. So your commit message is entirely wrong. OK I can change the commit message. I will also work on getting angstrom to use this from OE-Core so even angstrom wont need this feature. I agree that when similar features from other layers are added to OE-Core then all distros should be informed and helped out to adopt one good case where it happened nicely is buildhistory
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: >> doent sound logical to me. Would it be acceptable if angstrom used this >> feature from OE-Core as well ? then it will remove the usecase >> completely. > > I keep waiting on the person that pushed it to oe-core to provide patches > for distro layers using the old functionality, see above. This doesn't make much sense to me. It's impossible to know what all layers use a given piece of functionality, particularly ones that aren't published in public places, so expecting every person changing something in oe-core will go and submit changes to every layer that exists is entirely unreasonable. If you maintain a layer, it's your responsibility to make sure your layer retains compatibility with upstream. It's not upstream's responsibility to make sure everyone using their functionality stays compatible.
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: > > This doesn't make much sense to me. It's impossible to know what all > layers use a given piece of functionality, particularly ones that > aren't published in public places, so expecting every person changing > something in oe-core will go and submit changes to every layer that > exists is entirely unreasonable. If you maintain a layer, it's your > responsibility to make sure your layer retains compatibility with > upstream. It's not upstream's responsibility to make sure everyone > using their functionality stays compatible. I would agree in general. In this given case this feature was taken from meta-oe to begin with so my point is if you moved it from meta-oe then make sure that its removed from meta-oe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 05-08-12 23:37, Chris Larson schreef: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> > wrote: >>> doent sound logical to me. Would it be acceptable if angstrom used >>> this feature from OE-Core as well ? then it will remove the usecase >>> completely. >> >> I keep waiting on the person that pushed it to oe-core to provide >> patches for distro layers using the old functionality, see above. > > This doesn't make much sense to me. It's impossible to know what all > layers use a given piece of functionality, particularly ones that aren't > published in public places, so expecting every person changing something > in oe-core will go and submit changes to every layer that exists is > entirely unreasonable. If you maintain a layer, it's your responsibility > to make sure your layer retains compatibility with upstream. It's not > upstream's responsibility to make sure everyone using their functionality > stays compatible. In this specific instance the class was moved from meta-angstrom to meta-oe as is and then moved to oe-core and changed to make it "less angstrom specific". I don't see how you can argue that the person making that change was/is unaware of the existence of the angstrom layer. Or of the SHR usage of that class. But yes, some people don't know that layers exist, there was a nice example last week when I asked if someone checked *all* the layers out there on the impact of the patch in question and the response was "Yes, I checked both oe-core and meta-intel". I agree with your generic point that changes in oe-core can not and should not require updating of all layers by the submitter. On the other hand: if you know you're moving functionality between layers while breaking it in the process it is anti-social to not fix up the user(s) of that functionality that you know of. This is similar to asking a oe-core patch to be held back for a few days because a number of layers have a matching bbappend that will need updating. Especially if those layers have maintainers where the patch review latency is measured in days instead of hours (e.g. me with non-denzil based stuff). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFQH3W3MkyGM64RGpERAlbgAKCBvZTQD38H44mB+JzjQ2t92ttMzQCfVxeJ nX2o+AfM7mrFEZnBT7YAV5s= =v8kK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Koen,
Besides this patch are rest of patches acceptable?
while I work on making blacklist class acceptable in all use case
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> updating of all layers by the submitter. On the other hand: if
Patch
diff --git a/meta-oe/classes/blacklist.bbclass b/meta-oe/classes/blacklist.bbclass deleted file mode 100644 index 7bf4a73..0000000 --- a/meta-oe/classes/blacklist.bbclass +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20 +0,0 @@ -# anonymous support class from angstrom -# -# Features: -# -# * blacklist handling, set ANGSTROM_BLACKLIST_pn-blah = "message" -# - -python () { - import bb - - blacklist = bb.data.getVar("ANGSTROM_BLACKLIST", d, 1) - pkgnm = bb.data.getVar("PN", d, 1) - distro = bb.data.getVar("DISTRO", d, 1) - - if blacklist: - bb.note("%s DOES NOT support %s because %s" % (distro,pkgnm, blacklist)) - raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("%s DOES NOT support %s because %s" % (distro,pkgnm, blacklist)) - -} -
This class is angstrom specific so lets move it to more appropriate layer Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> --- meta-oe/classes/blacklist.bbclass | 20 -------------------- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 meta-oe/classes/blacklist.bbclass