| Submitter | Saul Wold |
|---|---|
| Date | June 10, 2011, 6:26 a.m. |
| Message ID | <cover.1307686598.git.sgw@linux.intel.com> |
| Download | mbox |
| Permalink | /patch/5621/ |
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Pull-request
git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib sgw/stageComments
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 23:26 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > Kang Kai (1): > ghostscript: update SRC_URI > > Nitin A Kamble (1): > gcc: rebase the patch to avoid patch rejection This was a disaster. It breaks the build and is huge, thereby clogging up the source control system web interface etc. I applied it, then had to revert it. Please test things like this more carefully in future. I also think we need to put these kind of patches on the website or in a repo, we shouldn't be carrying them around in the main repo. > Phil Blundell (1): > busybox: backport distro-features handling from oe master > > Saul Wold (1): > multiple recipes converted to -staticdev packages I'm with Phil on this one, needs more work. I haven't got to the other two since the gcc issue distracted me :/. Cheers, Richard
On 06/10/2011 09:33 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 23:26 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: >> Kang Kai (1): >> ghostscript: update SRC_URI >> >> Nitin A Kamble (1): >> gcc: rebase the patch to avoid patch rejection > > This was a disaster. It breaks the build and is huge, thereby clogging > up the source control system web interface etc. > > I applied it, then had to revert it. Please test things like this more > carefully in future. > > I also think we need to put these kind of patches on the website or in a > repo, we shouldn't be carrying them around in the main repo. > >> Phil Blundell (1): >> busybox: backport distro-features handling from oe master >> >> Saul Wold (1): >> multiple recipes converted to -staticdev packages > > I'm with Phil on this one, needs more work. > Sorry about this one, I thought I had it further along, I guess I had a cut and paste failure (dropping the R from RDEPENDS). > I haven't got to the other two since the gcc issue distracted me :/. > I did run multiple builds without failure, so I am not sure what happened with the gcc failure. Sau! > Cheers, > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >
Op 10 jun 2011, om 18:33 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 23:26 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: >> Kang Kai (1): >> ghostscript: update SRC_URI >> >> Nitin A Kamble (1): >> gcc: rebase the patch to avoid patch rejection > > This was a disaster. It breaks the build and is huge, thereby clogging > up the source control system web interface etc. > > I applied it, then had to revert it. Please test things like this more > carefully in future. > > I also think we need to put these kind of patches on the website or in a > repo, we shouldn't be carrying them around in the main repo. Having patches external to the layer is a recipe for failure, if you excude the pun. I've had to deal with patches disappearing/changing/etc a lot during the past months in the .dev world and I don't look forward to continuing those mistakes in the oe-core world. regards, Koen