Message ID | 5f256583bca8c2d4225c379cc9b7ca23f374dcdc.1339051007.git.liezhi.yang@windriver.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch deleted file mode 100644 index c3396d5..0000000 --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,36 +0,0 @@ -Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [other] - -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.c -=================================================================== ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:40:34.000000000 +0000 -@@ -876,3 +876,18 @@ - - return ret; - } -+ -+int -+opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2) -+{ -+ pkg_t *pkg1, *pkg2; -+ -+ pkg1 = pkg_new(); -+ pkg2 = pkg_new(); -+ -+ parse_version(pkg1, ver1); -+ parse_version(pkg2, ver2); -+ -+ return pkg_compare_versions(pkg1, pkg2); -+} -+ -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.h -=================================================================== ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:35:19.000000000 +0000 -@@ -58,4 +58,6 @@ - - int opkg_repository_accessibility_check(void); - -+int opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2); -+ - #endif /* OPKG_H */ diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb index c206b37..785b6ca 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@ require opkg.inc SRC_URI = "http://opkg.googlecode.com/files/opkg-${PV}.tar.gz \ - file://add_vercmp.patch \ + file://opkg/add_vercmp.patch \ file://headerfix.patch \ " +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "c714ce0e4863bf1315e3b6913ffe3299" +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "ff94bf30bd662d49c4b5057e3a0818d062731adaa555d59abd677ec32a3c1c60" + PR = "${INC_PR}.0"
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 05:24:39PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote: > * We use meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb by default, the > opkg_0.1.8.bb failed since no checksum specified. > > * The add_vercmp.patch in both opkg/ and opkg-0.1.8/, remove the one > in opkg-0.1.8/ > > This patch doesn't impact the output, so I think that we don't have to > increment the PR. > > [YOCTO #2498] > > Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> > --- > .../opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch | 36 -------------------- > meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb | 5 ++- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch > deleted file mode 100644 > index c3396d5..0000000 > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch > +++ /dev/null > @@ -1,36 +0,0 @@ > -Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [other] > - > -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.c > -=================================================================== > ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 > -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:40:34.000000000 +0000 > -@@ -876,3 +876,18 @@ > - > - return ret; > - } > -+ > -+int > -+opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2) > -+{ > -+ pkg_t *pkg1, *pkg2; > -+ > -+ pkg1 = pkg_new(); > -+ pkg2 = pkg_new(); > -+ > -+ parse_version(pkg1, ver1); > -+ parse_version(pkg2, ver2); > -+ > -+ return pkg_compare_versions(pkg1, pkg2); > -+} > -+ > -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.h > -=================================================================== > ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 > -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:35:19.000000000 +0000 > -@@ -58,4 +58,6 @@ > - > - int opkg_repository_accessibility_check(void); > - > -+int opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2); > -+ > - #endif /* OPKG_H */ > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb > index c206b37..785b6ca 100644 > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb > @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@ > require opkg.inc > > SRC_URI = "http://opkg.googlecode.com/files/opkg-${PV}.tar.gz \ > - file://add_vercmp.patch \ > + file://opkg/add_vercmp.patch \ is this "opkg/" really needed? > file://headerfix.patch \ > " > > +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "c714ce0e4863bf1315e3b6913ffe3299" > +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "ff94bf30bd662d49c4b5057e3a0818d062731adaa555d59abd677ec32a3c1c60" > + > PR = "${INC_PR}.0" > -- > 1.7.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
On 06/07/2012 02:31 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 05:24:39PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote: >> * We use meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb by default, the >> opkg_0.1.8.bb failed since no checksum specified. >> >> * The add_vercmp.patch in both opkg/ and opkg-0.1.8/, remove the one >> in opkg-0.1.8/ >> >> This patch doesn't impact the output, so I think that we don't have to >> increment the PR. >> >> [YOCTO #2498] >> >> Signed-off-by: Robert Yang<liezhi.yang@windriver.com> >> --- >> .../opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch | 36 -------------------- >> meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb | 5 ++- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >> deleted file mode 100644 >> index c3396d5..0000000 >> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >> +++ /dev/null >> @@ -1,36 +0,0 @@ >> -Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [other] >> - >> -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.c >> -=================================================================== >> ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 >> -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:40:34.000000000 +0000 >> -@@ -876,3 +876,18 @@ >> - >> - return ret; >> - } >> -+ >> -+int >> -+opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2) >> -+{ >> -+ pkg_t *pkg1, *pkg2; >> -+ >> -+ pkg1 = pkg_new(); >> -+ pkg2 = pkg_new(); >> -+ >> -+ parse_version(pkg1, ver1); >> -+ parse_version(pkg2, ver2); >> -+ >> -+ return pkg_compare_versions(pkg1, pkg2); >> -+} >> -+ >> -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.h >> -=================================================================== >> ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 >> -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:35:19.000000000 +0000 >> -@@ -58,4 +58,6 @@ >> - >> - int opkg_repository_accessibility_check(void); >> - >> -+int opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2); >> -+ >> - #endif /* OPKG_H */ >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >> index c206b37..785b6ca 100644 >> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >> @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@ >> require opkg.inc >> >> SRC_URI = "http://opkg.googlecode.com/files/opkg-${PV}.tar.gz \ >> - file://add_vercmp.patch \ >> + file://opkg/add_vercmp.patch \ > > is this "opkg/" really needed? > If it's getting removed, is it needed at all? Sau! >> file://headerfix.patch \ >> " >> >> +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "c714ce0e4863bf1315e3b6913ffe3299" >> +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "ff94bf30bd662d49c4b5057e3a0818d062731adaa555d59abd677ec32a3c1c60" >> + >> PR = "${INC_PR}.0" >> -- >> 1.7.1 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
On 06/07/2012 05:31 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 05:24:39PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote: >> * We use meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb by default, the >> opkg_0.1.8.bb failed since no checksum specified. >> >> * The add_vercmp.patch in both opkg/ and opkg-0.1.8/, remove the one >> in opkg-0.1.8/ >> >> This patch doesn't impact the output, so I think that we don't have to >> increment the PR. >> >> [YOCTO #2498] >> >> Signed-off-by: Robert Yang<liezhi.yang@windriver.com> >> --- >> .../opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch | 36 -------------------- >> meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb | 5 ++- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >> deleted file mode 100644 >> index c3396d5..0000000 >> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >> +++ /dev/null >> @@ -1,36 +0,0 @@ >> -Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [other] >> - >> -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.c >> -=================================================================== >> ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 >> -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:40:34.000000000 +0000 >> -@@ -876,3 +876,18 @@ >> - >> - return ret; >> - } >> -+ >> -+int >> -+opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2) >> -+{ >> -+ pkg_t *pkg1, *pkg2; >> -+ >> -+ pkg1 = pkg_new(); >> -+ pkg2 = pkg_new(); >> -+ >> -+ parse_version(pkg1, ver1); >> -+ parse_version(pkg2, ver2); >> -+ >> -+ return pkg_compare_versions(pkg1, pkg2); >> -+} >> -+ >> -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.h >> -=================================================================== >> ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 >> -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:35:19.000000000 +0000 >> -@@ -58,4 +58,6 @@ >> - >> - int opkg_repository_accessibility_check(void); >> - >> -+int opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2); >> -+ >> - #endif /* OPKG_H */ >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >> index c206b37..785b6ca 100644 >> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >> @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@ >> require opkg.inc >> >> SRC_URI = "http://opkg.googlecode.com/files/opkg-${PV}.tar.gz \ >> - file://add_vercmp.patch \ >> + file://opkg/add_vercmp.patch \ > > is this "opkg/" really needed? > This seems strange, I did see a WARNING yesterday which said that it can't find opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch after I removed opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch, I was curious why this happened, I guessed that this was because there was a opkg-0.1.8/ directory, and I was thinking whether this was a bug of do_fetch, but today, I can't reproduce the WARNING, even I added the opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch back, built opkg, removed the opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch, built opkg again. I removed the "opkg/" and pushed the commit to: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib robert/opkg_sum http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=robert/opkg_sum // Robert >> file://headerfix.patch \ >> " >> >> +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "c714ce0e4863bf1315e3b6913ffe3299" >> +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "ff94bf30bd662d49c4b5057e3a0818d062731adaa555d59abd677ec32a3c1c60" >> + >> PR = "${INC_PR}.0" >> -- >> 1.7.1 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
On 06/07/2012 08:03 PM, Saul Wold wrote: > On 06/07/2012 02:31 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 05:24:39PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote: >>> * We use meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb by default, the >>> opkg_0.1.8.bb failed since no checksum specified. >>> >>> * The add_vercmp.patch in both opkg/ and opkg-0.1.8/, remove the one >>> in opkg-0.1.8/ >>> >>> This patch doesn't impact the output, so I think that we don't have to >>> increment the PR. >>> >>> [YOCTO #2498] >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robert Yang<liezhi.yang@windriver.com> >>> --- >>> .../opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch | 36 -------------------- >>> meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb | 5 ++- >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) >>> delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >>> >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >>> b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >>> deleted file mode 100644 >>> index c3396d5..0000000 >>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch >>> +++ /dev/null >>> @@ -1,36 +0,0 @@ >>> -Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [other] >>> - >>> -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.c >>> -=================================================================== >>> ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 >>> -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.c 2010-01-26 20:40:34.000000000 +0000 >>> -@@ -876,3 +876,18 @@ >>> - >>> - return ret; >>> - } >>> -+ >>> -+int >>> -+opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2) >>> -+{ >>> -+ pkg_t *pkg1, *pkg2; >>> -+ >>> -+ pkg1 = pkg_new(); >>> -+ pkg2 = pkg_new(); >>> -+ >>> -+ parse_version(pkg1, ver1); >>> -+ parse_version(pkg2, ver2); >>> -+ >>> -+ return pkg_compare_versions(pkg1, pkg2); >>> -+} >>> -+ >>> -Index: trunk/libopkg/opkg.h >>> -=================================================================== >>> ---- trunk.orig/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:32:19.000000000 +0000 >>> -+++ trunk/libopkg/opkg.h 2010-01-26 20:35:19.000000000 +0000 >>> -@@ -58,4 +58,6 @@ >>> - >>> - int opkg_repository_accessibility_check(void); >>> - >>> -+int opkg_compare_versions (const char *ver1, const char *ver2); >>> -+ >>> - #endif /* OPKG_H */ >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >>> b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >>> index c206b37..785b6ca 100644 >>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb >>> @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@ >>> require opkg.inc >>> >>> SRC_URI = "http://opkg.googlecode.com/files/opkg-${PV}.tar.gz \ >>> - file://add_vercmp.patch \ >>> + file://opkg/add_vercmp.patch \ >> >> is this "opkg/" really needed? >> > If it's getting removed, is it needed at all? > I removed the opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch to let it use the opkg/add_vercmp.patch, so this line is needed, but the "opkg/" is not needed, I have updated this and pushed to git repo. // Robert > Sau! > >>> file://headerfix.patch \ >>> " >>> >>> +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "c714ce0e4863bf1315e3b6913ffe3299" >>> +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = >>> "ff94bf30bd662d49c4b5057e3a0818d062731adaa555d59abd677ec32a3c1c60" >>> + >>> PR = "${INC_PR}.0" >>> -- >>> 1.7.1 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > >
* We use meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb by default, the opkg_0.1.8.bb failed since no checksum specified. * The add_vercmp.patch in both opkg/ and opkg-0.1.8/, remove the one in opkg-0.1.8/ This patch doesn't impact the output, so I think that we don't have to increment the PR. [YOCTO #2498] Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> --- .../opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch | 36 -------------------- meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb | 5 ++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg-0.1.8/add_vercmp.patch