[Dev] upgrading some "upstream" packages

Artem Bityutskiy artem.bityutskiy at linux.intel.com
Wed Feb 19 10:07:21 GMT 2014


On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 11:02 +0200, Ylinen, Mikko wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Artem Bityutskiy
> <artem.bityutskiy at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>         On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 09:39 -0800, Kok, Auke-jan H wrote:
>         > IOW, go ahead and submit changes to Linux-Firmware, they
>         should be
>         > accepted quickly.
>         
>         
>         Yes, thanks I will next week, this week is too busy.
>         
>         Although I am not sure about the 'accepted quickly' part. Most
>         probably
>         this will be about rebasing both the 'upstream' and the
>         'tizen'
>         branches.
>         
>         The former is because the current 'upstream' branch does not
>         contain the
>         upstream history, which is probably not what we want. So I'd
>         lust
>         hard-reset it to the current upstream. Is this right?
> 
> 
> Would everybody agree with this proposal? 
> 
> 
> I looked into the status of Tizen linux-firmware tree and noticed:
>  
> - the original 'upstream' tarball repo (source0) is no longer
> available
> (so we cannot gbs import new versions anymore).
> - git.kernel.org provides a maintained git tree for linux-firmware
> 
> 
> So there right way to do this is (like Artem proposed): push
> new 'upstream' branch with history and rebase 'tizen' on top of that.
> Additionally, 'pristine-tar' would no longer be needed.

Well, for me this is just obviously the right thing to do.
Linux-firmware is a public open-source project, and our "upstream"
branch has to match _the_ upstream master branch.

So yes, if you ask me, I agree with Artem too :-)

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy



More information about the Dev mailing list