9190 2016-03-01 09:36:55 +0000 [meta-swupd] Try to consolidate OS_VERSION and DISTRO_VERSION 2016-09-13 09:30:41 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime Other YP Layers meta-swupd 2.2 x86 Multiple RESOLVED NOTABUG Low enhancement Future 1 joshuagloe joshuagloe igor.stoppa poky.bs.watcher poky.watcher --- --- No (bug/feature does not impact docs) oldest_to_newest 59566 0 joshuagloe 2016-03-01 09:36:55 +0000 swupd-image.bbclass introduces a new variable for the OS version number when we already have a DISTRO_VERSION variable. This was done because swupd makes various assumptions about the version number which aren't necessarily true for traditional DISTRO_VERSION values in OE et al. 59754 1 igor.stoppa 2016-03-07 13:45:00 +0000 Some thoughts, from a user perspective: * in general the generation of swupd data doesn't come for free (more space, more build time), so it might be preferable to have it set as a configurable option (beyond the inheritance or not from the swupd-image class) * in the context of the previous bullet point, the swupd version vs build id reminds me of sha id vs tag in a git tree: every commit has a hash but not every commit is tagged. So here we could consider them in the same way: related but not identical. * building on the previous 2 points, the id used by swupd could be provided without any pre-defined value, so that it is more obvious that this value really need to be provided from the outer context, be it CI pumping out progressive numbers, or a developer who has explicitly enabled the creation of swupd data and wants to generate a local repo that will be fed to a specific device (which in turn will be running a certain version and will update only to a higher number). 66076 2 joshuagloe 2016-09-13 09:30:41 +0000 I'm increasingly of the opinion that this isn't a big issue and I think Igor's comment backs this. Closing as NOTABUG unless someone actually requests this consolidation.