First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 121037
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Embedded Gentoo Team <embedded@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Radek Podgorny <radek@podgorny.cz>
Add CC:
CC:
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
bitbake-1.2.1.ebuild bitbake-1.2.1.ebuild text/plain Radek Podgorny 2006-01-31 04:38 0000 558 bytes Details
bitbake-1.3.2.ebuild bitbake-1.3.2.ebuild text/plain Radek Podgorny 2006-01-31 09:10 0000 569 bytes Details
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 121037 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 121037 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2006-01-31 04:26 0000 
The current version of bitbake in portage is 0 which sounds weird to me.
According to berlios, the latest version is clearly 1.2.1 so please put
versioned ebuild into portage. Thanks...

------- Comment #1 From Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2006-01-31 04:33:05 0000 ------- 
bitbake is a live subversion ebuild, i.e. - uses files from bitbake svn trunk.
No version bumps required here.

------- Comment #2 From Radek Podgorny 2006-01-31 04:37:52 0000 ------- 
I thought svn/cvs ebuild are against gentoo policy. So, please see attached
ebuild for version 1.2.1 and rename bitbake to bitbake-svn.

------- Comment #3 From Radek Podgorny 2006-01-31 04:38:41 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=78558) [details]
bitbake-1.2.1.ebuild

------- Comment #4 From SpanKY 2006-01-31 07:10:26 0000 ------- 
they are heavily discouraged

bitbake generally doesnt do releases hence a live svn ebuild was added instead
(in fact the ebuild was made almost a year before their first "release")

i dont see much value in adding the 1.2.1 version, but i will rename the 0 to
9999 so people dont get confused

------- Comment #5 From Radek Podgorny 2006-01-31 07:28:06 0000 ------- 
Well, why not add bitbake-1.2.1 and bitbake-svn-0? I'm using 1.2.1 without
problems.

I mean, you'll get problems when you provide only svn version since when
someone downloads it when it's in broken state, gentoo gets flamed. :-(
Providing ebuild for release version is a sure thing (in means of working
state).

Anyway, I can try to write to bitbake developers and ask them to make a
release...

------- Comment #6 From Radek Podgorny 2006-01-31 09:10:37 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=78575) [details]
bitbake-1.3.2.ebuild

This is an ebuild for version 1.3.2 which is the latest stable. Very close to
what you get when you pull it from svn.

------- Comment #7 From Radek Podgorny 2006-01-31 09:21:31 0000 ------- 
I've had a conversation with the devs and they said there will be more releases
coming so it imho makes sense to keep ebuilds for released versions...

------- Comment #8 From SpanKY 2006-02-02 14:50:53 0000 ------- 
having sep packages for livesvn and releases is a waste of space

moved 0 to 9999, then cleaned up and added 1.3.2 to portage
First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug