[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openembedded-core
Subject:    [OE-core] [oe-core][V2][PATCH] mesa: Upgrade to 10.4.0
From:       pengyu.ma () windriver ! com (Pengyu Ma)
Date:       2015-01-30 9:12:23
Message-ID: 54CB4AF7.2000302 () windriver ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On 01/30/2015 05:05 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 09:02 +0100, Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Pengyu Ma <pengyu.ma at windriver.com> wrote:
>>> Understood, but there are 2 version mesa_xxx.bb and mesa_git.bb.
>>> Is there any reason why keep two versions?
>> right. this is indeed a good question. I am not sure what the
>> 'semantics' of the _git.bb recipe really is. In my minds the _git was
>> supposed to point to development branch, or -rc release... looking at
>> history it seems we keep it in sync with the other mesa recipe.. so i
>> am not actually sure why we do that.. maybe someone else can answer.
> There once was a plan to have something closer to upstream for testing
> and getting things from the SCM is the way to do that. The indent was to
> learn about issues before they got released rather than afterwards.
>
> As such, we have pieces of this around, the poky-bleeding DISTRO setting
> for example was meant to enable the git versions of recipes.
>
> Some people when developing/testing/debugging have developed git
> versions of recipes and where they still work and aren't a maintenance
> burden, we've left them. I've personally used a few recipes like that
> and I know others have too.
>
> I do still dream of the day we'll have the resources/technology to make
> poky-bleeding a reality again.
>
> So the git recipe is intended to look beyond the last stable release or
> otherwise be the same.
Thanks for kindly explanation, it makes more clear about _git.

I will re-submit another mesa_10.4.3 and same _git version.

Thanks,
Pengyu
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]