Re: [ptxdist] patchlevel version numbers....

[David Jander <david.jander@protonic.nl>]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:08:03 +0200
Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:33:21PM +0200, David Jander wrote:
> > My excuses if this had been asked before. I have not found any
> > information about this issue:
> >
> > Currently version numbers in ptxdist (version 2011.12) are tightly
> > coupled to the original source filename that is downloaded. This is in
> > the end the version number in the package filename. But, what if there
> > are local patches to the package (bug fixes, cross-compile fixes,
> > etc...), shouldn't the package get a suffix to the version number
> > (i.e. like debian package version numbers)?
> >
> > Now I have the situation that we have added extra patches to fix bugs
> > in packages that were previously released to customers. I can't find a
> > way to properly differentiate the new package from the old one. How is
> > this supposed to be dealt with?
> 
> I think we don't have a really good strategy for that yet; for most
> industrial users, using packages is more development feature, because
> people often treat the "firmware" as a big blob with one version number.
> That obviously has the advantage that less package combinations need to
> be tested for deployment, but of course it is far from being optimal. We
> definitely want to have a strategy for people who want to maintain their
> own distribution.

I agree, that most of the time, one would prefer a simple firmware "blob".
But there are a few reasons for being able to upgrade individual packages.
For example, if there are a few different variants that need the same base OS,
but different packages on top. Or when people can purchase extra
software options.

Take for example Dream-Multimedia's Dreambox sat receivers. Those are
currently OE-based, and use .ipk packages via opkg's package feeds.
Of course this is an extreme case ;-)

> Next week at the Pengutronix TechWeek 2012, "updating" / "packaging" etc
> is one of the focus topics of the platform team. We'd like to identify
> the issues for software updating (I think there are about 4 major
> usecases) and come up with possible solutions.
> 
> So if you have ideas how to improve the mechanisms, we are very open to
> suggestions.

Thanks for the invitation. In the case of tslib, I am experimenting with this
kind of approach:

--- /usr/local/lib/ptxdist-2011.12.0/rules/tslib.make   2011-11-23 16:33:53.000000000 +0100
+++ rules/tslib.make    2012-06-08 15:51:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -17,13 +17,16 @@
 #
 # Paths and names
 #
-TSLIB_VERSION  := 1.0
-TSLIB_MD5      := 970cc089da1a75f6626172543a2e8df4
-TSLIB          := tslib-$(TSLIB_VERSION)
-TSLIB_SUFFIX   := tar.bz2
-TSLIB_URL      := http://www.pengutronix.de/software/ptxdist/temporary-src/$(TSLIB).$(TSLIB_SUFFIX)
-TSLIB_SOURCE   := $(SRCDIR)/$(TSLIB).$(TSLIB_SUFFIX)
-TSLIB_DIR      := $(BUILDDIR)/$(TSLIB)
+TSLIB_UPSTREAM_VERSION := 1.0
+TSLIB_PATCHLEVEL       := 2
+TSLIB_VERSION          := $(TSLIB_UPSTREAM_VERSION)-$(TSLIB_PATCHLEVEL)
+TSLIB_MD5              := 970cc089da1a75f6626172543a2e8df4
+TSLIB_UPSTREAM         := tslib-$(TSLIB_UPSTREAM_VERSION)
+TSLIB                  := tslib-$(TSLIB_VERSION)
+TSLIB_SUFFIX           := tar.bz2
+TSLIB_URL              := http://www.pengutronix.de/software/ptxdist/temporary-src/$(TSLIB_UPSTREAM).$(TSLIB_SUFFIX)
+TSLIB_SOURCE           := $(SRCDIR)/$(TSLIB_UPSTREAM).$(TSLIB_SUFFIX)
+TSLIB_DIR              := $(BUILDDIR)/$(TSLIB)
 
 # ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 # Get


It seems to work. Of course, the details of it could better be hidden in the
core macros of ptxdist, instead of every make file.

Best regards,

-- 
David Jander
Protonic Holland.

-- 
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de