| Submitter | Paul Eggleton |
|---|---|
| Date | Oct. 1, 2012, 4:14 p.m. |
| Message ID | <cover.1349107616.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> |
| Download | mbox |
| Permalink | /patch/37559/ |
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Pull-request
git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib paule/meta-webserver-addComments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 01-10-12 18:14, Paul Eggleton schreef: > So finally I have got this into a working state; apologies for the delay. > There were a number of issues affecting cross-compilation as well as some > problems with the initial configuration; these should now be addressed. > We may wish to look at a more standard directory layout for Apache as the > default one doesn't seem to be used by most distributions; we can look at > this later - for now let's get the recipes out there so people can try > them out. > > I know there are a few people waiting to submit additional recipes for > this layer and I expect we will also want to look at moving some > web-server related recipes from meta-oe into here at some point in the > near future. How does this compare to meta-networking? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFQavz3MkyGM64RGpERAnFmAJwJBHthgpRyWHCa3ECpmk6OUuMs5gCeOtDa 9BWYkISAbsBLbxmhcf89yGU= =shQt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tuesday 02 October 2012 16:40:55 Koen Kooi wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Op 01-10-12 18:14, Paul Eggleton schreef: > > So finally I have got this into a working state; apologies for the delay. > > There were a number of issues affecting cross-compilation as well as some > > problems with the initial configuration; these should now be addressed. > > We may wish to look at a more standard directory layout for Apache as the > > default one doesn't seem to be used by most distributions; we can look at > > this later - for now let's get the recipes out there so people can try > > them out. > > > > I know there are a few people waiting to submit additional recipes for > > this layer and I expect we will also want to look at moving some > > web-server related recipes from meta-oe into here at some point in the > > near future. > > How does this compare to meta-networking? It's separate; this focuses just on web-based items (on the server side). I'm not sure how much it will actually grow but you can imagine in the extreme case we could end up with a number of web servers, several standalone web admin interfaces, a bunch of web frameworks and related recipes for each of the latter. All of that would bloat out meta-networking a bit too much, hence this separate layer. I did send an RFC for this a couple of months ago, although the scope has been refined a little since then: http://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org/msg26071.html Cheers, Paul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 01-10-12 18:14, Paul Eggleton schreef: > So finally I have got this into a working state; apologies for the delay. > There were a number of issues affecting cross-compilation as well as some > problems with the initial configuration; these should now be addressed. > We may wish to look at a more standard directory layout for Apache as the > default one doesn't seem to be used by most distributions; we can look at > this later - for now let's get the recipes out there so people can try > them out. > > I know there are a few people waiting to submit additional recipes for > this layer and I expect we will also want to look at moving some > web-server related recipes from meta-oe into here at some point in the > near future. > > > The following changes since commit > 7bfff4b1d6b0067ddabf2474320e3e78795b2b4f: > > uhd,fuse: Fix misplaced quotations (2012-09-28 22:50:42 +0200) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib > paule/meta-webserver-add > http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=paule/meta-webserver-add > > Paul Eggleton (6): Add meta-webserver layer apache2: add from > OE-Classic modphp: add from OE-Classic apache2: update to version 2.4.2 > and fix modphp: update to 5.3.14 and fix xdebug: add new recipe Squash those "import" with the "fix" commits, no sense in having a broken recipe in there. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFQbBJTMkyGM64RGpERAnW0AKCEqJZSIe3A+BJ7h8VchN/jKfV0BgCeOcM8 sKPvfhNA7x2tyEhwEj6dw/M= =5Lcn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wednesday 03 October 2012 12:24:19 Koen Kooi wrote: > Squash those "import" with the "fix" commits, no sense in having a broken > recipe in there. I'd rather not - there is sense in being clear about the changes, because there are a large number of them in this case. Cheers, Paul
Op 3 okt. 2012 om 12:43 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven: > On Wednesday 03 October 2012 12:24:19 Koen Kooi wrote: >> Squash those "import" with the "fix" commits, no sense in having a broken >> recipe in there. > > I'd rather not - there is sense in being clear about the changes, because > there are a large number of them in this case. The broken recipes are still available in OE classic if people want to compare them. I still don't get why you want to have broken recipes in the tree at multiple points in your series. > > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > > Paul Eggleton > Intel Open Source Technology Centre
On Wednesday 03 October 2012 13:27:41 Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 3 okt. 2012 om 12:43 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven: > > On Wednesday 03 October 2012 12:24:19 Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Squash those "import" with the "fix" commits, no sense in having a broken > >> recipe in there. > > > > I'd rather not - there is sense in being clear about the changes, because > > there are a large number of them in this case. > > The broken recipes are still available in OE classic if people want to > compare them. I still don't get why you want to have broken recipes in the > tree at multiple points in your series. Because I want to easily see in "git blame" where particular lines came from - did I add them, or have they been around for ages? Cheers, Paul
Op 3 okt. 2012, om 13:29 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven: > On Wednesday 03 October 2012 13:27:41 Koen Kooi wrote: >> Op 3 okt. 2012 om 12:43 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> > het volgende geschreven: >>> On Wednesday 03 October 2012 12:24:19 Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> Squash those "import" with the "fix" commits, no sense in having a broken >>>> recipe in there. >>> >>> I'd rather not - there is sense in being clear about the changes, because >>> there are a large number of them in this case. >> >> The broken recipes are still available in OE classic if people want to >> compare them. I still don't get why you want to have broken recipes in the >> tree at multiple points in your series. > > Because I want to easily see in "git blame" where particular lines came from - > did I add them, or have they been around for ages? Does oe-core have the same flow for new recipes?
On Wednesday 03 October 2012 13:43:30 Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 3 okt. 2012, om 13:29 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven: > > On Wednesday 03 October 2012 13:27:41 Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 3 okt. 2012 om 12:43 heeft Paul Eggleton > >> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> > > > > het volgende geschreven: > >>> On Wednesday 03 October 2012 12:24:19 Koen Kooi wrote: > >>>> Squash those "import" with the "fix" commits, no sense in having a > >>>> broken > >>>> recipe in there. > >>> > >>> I'd rather not - there is sense in being clear about the changes, > >>> because > >>> there are a large number of them in this case. > >> > >> The broken recipes are still available in OE classic if people want to > >> compare them. I still don't get why you want to have broken recipes in > >> the > >> tree at multiple points in your series. > > > > Because I want to easily see in "git blame" where particular lines came > > from - did I add them, or have they been around for ages? > > Does oe-core have the same flow for new recipes? You already know the answer to this. Cheers, Paul
Op 3 okt. 2012, om 14:23 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven: > On Wednesday 03 October 2012 13:43:30 Koen Kooi wrote: >> Op 3 okt. 2012, om 13:29 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> > het volgende geschreven: >>> On Wednesday 03 October 2012 13:27:41 Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> Op 3 okt. 2012 om 12:43 heeft Paul Eggleton >>>> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> >>> >>> het volgende geschreven: >>>>> On Wednesday 03 October 2012 12:24:19 Koen Kooi wrote: >>>>>> Squash those "import" with the "fix" commits, no sense in having a >>>>>> broken >>>>>> recipe in there. >>>>> >>>>> I'd rather not - there is sense in being clear about the changes, >>>>> because >>>>> there are a large number of them in this case. >>>> >>>> The broken recipes are still available in OE classic if people want to >>>> compare them. I still don't get why you want to have broken recipes in >>>> the >>>> tree at multiple points in your series. >>> >>> Because I want to easily see in "git blame" where particular lines came >>> from - did I add them, or have they been around for ages? >> >> Does oe-core have the same flow for new recipes? > > You already know the answer to this. No I don't, actually.
On Wednesday 03 October 2012 15:12:55 Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 3 okt. 2012, om 14:23 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven: > > On Wednesday 03 October 2012 13:43:30 Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 3 okt. 2012, om 13:29 heeft Paul Eggleton > >> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>> > > het volgende geschreven: > >>> On Wednesday 03 October 2012 13:27:41 Koen Kooi wrote: > >>>> Op 3 okt. 2012 om 12:43 heeft Paul Eggleton > >>>> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> > >>> > >>> het volgende geschreven: > >>>>> On Wednesday 03 October 2012 12:24:19 Koen Kooi wrote: > >>>>>> Squash those "import" with the "fix" commits, no sense in having a > >>>>>> broken > >>>>>> recipe in there. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd rather not - there is sense in being clear about the changes, > >>>>> because > >>>>> there are a large number of them in this case. > >>>> > >>>> The broken recipes are still available in OE classic if people want to > >>>> compare them. I still don't get why you want to have broken recipes in > >>>> the > >>>> tree at multiple points in your series. > >>> > >>> Because I want to easily see in "git blame" where particular lines came > >>> from - did I add them, or have they been around for ages? > >> > >> Does oe-core have the same flow for new recipes? > > > > You already know the answer to this. > > No I don't, actually. The answer is no, it doesn't. I guess on reflection we probably ought to be consistent here though - for better or worse, this is not what has been done when pulling in recipes from OE-Classic for the rest of meta-openembedded. The commit message does already list the changes from the original, and I'll concede that having just one revision doesn't give a huge amount in the way of insight on previous origin; ultimately as you say, OE-Classic is still there as a reference for that. OK, I've squashed those commits out on the branch. Would it be worth me posting a v2 after all these changes? Cheers, Paul
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > The answer is no, it doesn't. > > I guess on reflection we probably ought to be consistent here though - for > better or worse, this is not what has been done when pulling in recipes from > OE-Classic for the rest of meta-openembedded. The commit message does already > list the changes from the original, and I'll concede that having just one > revision doesn't give a huge amount in the way of insight on previous origin; > ultimately as you say, OE-Classic is still there as a reference for that. > > OK, I've squashed those commits out on the branch. Would it be worth me > posting a v2 after all these changes? Actually, this is one really annoying thing about OE. When people rename the file 'git blame' comes worthless. Is there a way around this? -M
On Wednesday 03 October 2012 14:08:16 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Paul Eggleton > > <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > The answer is no, it doesn't. > > > > I guess on reflection we probably ought to be consistent here though - for > > better or worse, this is not what has been done when pulling in recipes > > from OE-Classic for the rest of meta-openembedded. The commit message > > does already list the changes from the original, and I'll concede that > > having just one revision doesn't give a huge amount in the way of insight > > on previous origin; ultimately as you say, OE-Classic is still there as a > > reference for that. > > > > OK, I've squashed those commits out on the branch. Would it be worth me > > posting a v2 after all these changes? > > Actually, this is one really annoying thing about OE. When people > rename the file 'git blame' comes worthless. Is there a way around > this? Usually it picks up on renames just fine, but as with git diff -M there is some fuzziness in how it determines the difference between a file rename and an unrelated delete followed by an add; sometimes the difference is too great for git to consider as a rename with its default settings. I just tested, you can improve rename detection with git blame by using the -C option though; adjusting the -M value might also help. Cheers, Paul
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:08 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 <B29882@freescale.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Paul Eggleton > <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> The answer is no, it doesn't. >> >> I guess on reflection we probably ought to be consistent here though - for >> better or worse, this is not what has been done when pulling in recipes from >> OE-Classic for the rest of meta-openembedded. The commit message does already >> list the changes from the original, and I'll concede that having just one >> revision doesn't give a huge amount in the way of insight on previous origin; >> ultimately as you say, OE-Classic is still there as a reference for that. >> >> OK, I've squashed those commits out on the branch. Would it be worth me >> posting a v2 after all these changes? > > Actually, this is one really annoying thing about OE. When people > rename the file 'git blame' comes worthless. Is there a way around > this? > does git blame -M -C help ? > -M > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel