From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:00:57 +0200 From: David Jander Message-ID: <20120608160057.64f306dc@archvile> In-Reply-To: <20120608070803.GA30137@pengutronix.de> References: <20120607153321.2572ccf8@archvile> <20120608070803.GA30137@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ptxdist] patchlevel version numbers.... Reply-To: ptxdist@pengutronix.de List-Id: PTXdist Development Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ptxdist-bounces@pengutronix.de Errors-To: ptxdist-bounces@pengutronix.de To: ptxdist@pengutronix.de Cc: r.schwebel@pengutronix.de On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:08:03 +0200 Robert Schwebel 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