Makefile responsibility?

Rod Whitby rod at whitby.id.au
Thu May 1 09:38:10 CEST 2008


Thomas Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 08:12 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 08:11 +0930, Rod Whitby wrote:
>>> Thomas Wood wrote:
>>>> This looks like the sane srcrev is missing for opkg. I believe this will
>>>> have been caused because Tick asked for the revision to be
>>>> "unfixed" (i.e. it should now track head).
>>>>
>>>> You'll need to ask an OpenEmbedded developer to look into this and fix
>>>> as appropriate. In this case I think Julian made the change so I have
>>>> CC'd him to this e-mail.
>>> I'm sorry, but we went through a whole lot of pain and effort to make
>>> sure that *everything* in the Openmoko image build was locked to a known
>>> SVN revision (which people can *opt-in* to change by using
>>> moko-autorev.inc), so "unfixing" something is simply not acceptable.
>>>
>>> opkg must be left at a known good sane srcrev in sane-srcrevs.inc (and
>>> it is the responsibility of the opkg developer to update that when a new
>>> known-good tested version is available and intended for the general
>>> public).  "Unfixing" should be done by adding it to moko-autorev.inc,
>>> *not* by removing it from sane-srcrevs.inc.
>> Well, I think that's what I said already. If it wasn't, then it's what I
>> meant. I'm not an OE expert. :-)
> 
> And I should probably point out that I didn't make the change either.

Understood and agreed.  My point (which I guess was directed at the 
project as a whole instead of yourself) was that we don't want to undo 
the great work that was done by fixing everything to stable SVN 
revisions by default, whilst still allowing core developers to include 
autorev to get bleeding edge stuff.

My apologies for not making it clear that I was agreeing with you and 
then reinforcing the point, rather than blaming you for the error (which 
wasn't yours).

-- Rod



More information about the openmoko-devel mailing list