Updating to dunfell

64 views
Skip to first unread message

Electric Worry

unread,
Sep 24, 2020, 2:28:18 PM9/24/20
to DEBY
Hello,

I like this project and I'm thinking of using it for an idea I have. Do you think it would be a lot of work for me to update it to support poky dunfell? I can see already before I've started trying that there would be a good number of changes, but I can't anticipate just how many.

Does anyone have any insight? Am I looking at a reasonably achievable, a highly time consuming, or an impossible task?

Cheers.

Nhan

unread,
Jan 30, 2021, 1:56:46 AM1/30/21
to DEBY
Hello all,

Could I contribute porting meta-debian for dunfell?

Vào lúc 01:28:18 UTC+7 ngày Thứ Sáu, 25 tháng 9, 2020, worrye...@gmail.com đã viết:

Electric Worry

unread,
Feb 1, 2021, 6:01:16 AM2/1/21
to DEBY
Hi,

I ended up not making much progress on this and then turned my attention to other projects. I'm afraid that I'm too much of a beginner in the embedded world and struggled. However, if this is something you're also wanting to look at, I'd be willing to help, as long as you understand I've got a lot to learn.

Cheers.

kazuhiro...@toshiba.co.jp

unread,
Jul 9, 2021, 1:46:05 AM7/9/21
to worrye...@gmail.com, meta-...@googlegroups.com

Hello,

 

Apologize for no response for long months.

 

The similar discussion is now happening again in a thread [0].

However, I’m still not sure how it’s worth to move our current target (buster on warrior) to dunfell.

See my old post [1] for more about the reasons.

 

The porting is definitely possible and it makes sense from the perspective of

longer term maintenance of resources in OE-Core layer.

On the other hand, I confirmed that not a few recipes (including some core components like python)

need to be adjusted again for newer recipes in dunfell and it would take several months at least

for updating and testing recipes.

Also, there are more gaps between package versions of buster and dunfell,

which pulls additional conflicts in their features / specifications.

 

If more motivations for the porting become clear, I would like to look at more details,

otherwise warrior would keep being the base for buster packages in this project.

 

[0] https://github.com/meta-debian/meta-debian/issues/191

[1] https://github.com/meta-debian/meta-debian/issues/191#issuecomment-860219822

 

Regards,

Kazu

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DEBY" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to meta-debian...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/meta-debian/915564d7-eae7-4231-8baa-1ee2695886c6n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages