| Message ID | 55A9229E.2090207@openwrt.org |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
On 17 July 2015 at 16:43, Jonas Gorski <jogo@openwrt.org> wrote: > On 17.07.2015 16:16, Karl Palsson wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jonas Gorski <jogo@openwrt.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Arturo Rinaldi <arturo@doghunter.org> >>> wrote: >>>> after running the git 'reset' command : >>>> >>>> $ git reset --hard 171f0fd10830acd3259f7c229f1b65b95595f388 >>>> >>>> in the trunk directory returns me : >>>> >>>> fatal: Could not parse object '171f0fd10830acd3259f7c229f1b65b95595f388' >>>> >>>> is by any chance the right commit the one updating openssl to v1.0.2.d ? >>> >>> AFAICT the build isn't exactly one revision; it's r46163 + r46286 (the >>> OpenSSL update to 1.0.2d), but none of the fixes between them. >>> >>> the feed revisions are: >>> >>> luci cf2e3f6c20dbdfdc3d8c4d4115cf9c533444e61f >>> packages 7551321fab9b5676ae7824b18a51d53be2a48cb0 >>> mangement ab76d576a5cbcb01075757d5d8c6e1d83f1e9ffc >>> routing f5eab926d75396d5e95d7b7eebcac34aab30f6f7 >>> telephony 6375e2a4aaba77aacc9b2cdea18e29fafe4cd2d5 >>> >> >> Could the feeds and the repo maybe get tagged? you can put tag names in >> feeds.conf with "url;tag_name" that would make some of this a little >> easier? > > You can also define specific commits with "url^revision" ;) What I don't understand is why there is so much interest in replicating RC3. It makes sense to have a RC3 so there are binaries and more people test it. But if you are going to build it yourself, shouldn't you just use whatever is the latest commit in git://git.openwrt.org/15.05/openwrt.git? That already has the tags for the feeds (http://git.openwrt.org/?p=15.05/openwrt.git;a=blob_plain;f=feeds.conf.default;hb=HEAD). Why to build a RC3 with the bugs that have already been solved and will not be there in RC4/final?
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Cristian Morales Vega wrote: > On 17 July 2015 at 16:43, Jonas Gorski <jogo@openwrt.org> wrote: > > What I don't understand is why there is so much interest in > replicating RC3. It makes sense to have a RC3 so there are binaries > and more people test it. But if you are going to build it yourself, > shouldn't you just use whatever is the latest commit in > git://git.openwrt.org/15.05/openwrt.git? That already has the tags for > the feeds (http://git.openwrt.org/?p=15.05/openwrt.git;a=blob_plain;f=feeds.conf.default;hb=HEAD). > > Why to build a RC3 with the bugs that have already been solved and > will not be there in RC4/final? if someone is wanting to test specific changes, it's always best to only apply the one change you want to test. Compiling trunk brings in a lot more changes, some of which may introduce bugs (that should be squashed before RC4/Final, but can catch someone in the meantime) David Lang
diff --git a/scripts/feeds b/scripts/feeds index 1da44f5..7547bf5 100755 --- a/scripts/feeds +++ b/scripts/feeds @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ sub list_feed { sub list { my %opts; - getopts('r:d:nsh', \%opts); + getopts('r:d:nshf', \%opts); if ($opts{h}) { usage(); return 0; @@ -342,6 +342,14 @@ sub list { if ($opts{d}) { printf "%s%s%s%s%s%s%s\n", $feed->[1], $opts{d}, $feed->[0], $opts{d}, $revision, $opts{d}, join(", ", @{$feed->[2]}); } + elsif ($opts{f}) { + my $uri = join(", ", @{$feed->[2]}); + if ($revision ne "local" && $revision ne "X") { + $uri =~ s/[;^].*//; + $uri .= "^" . $revision; + } + printf "%s %s %s\n", $feed->[0], $feed->[1], $uri; + } else { printf "\%-8s \%-8s \%-8s \%s\n", $feed->[1], $feed->[0], $revision, join(", ", @{$feed->[2]}); } @@ -758,6 +766,7 @@ Commands: -s : List of feed names and their URL. -r <feedname>: List packages of specified feed. -d <delimiter>: Use specified delimiter to distinguish rows (default: spaces) + -f : List feeds in feeds.conf compatible format (when using -s). install [options] <package>: Install a package Options: