Re: tagging opkg 0.1.7

Would it be better to have an option to opkg to change the errors into
warnings instead of making them warnings now and errors later?

On Dec 3, 3:39 am, Koen Kooi <koen.k...@...> wrote:
> On 2 dec, 21:48, Graham Gower <graham.go...@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 2009/12/2 John Willis <John.Wil...@...>:
>
> > > Hi All,
>
> > >> OE is using r402/trunk now, so if people don't start bitching on the
> > >> OE lists soon, it looks pretty good.
>
> > > There seem to be a number of small issues that have surfaced with opkg
> > > (in it's -native OE form) since the SRC bump that are showing up when
> > > building the rootfs for images (in both reported cases, big images, >
> > > 200meg rootfs size and lots of packages).
>
> > > These manifest themselves as opkg errors in the rootfs log (and the
> > > respective package failing leading to the rootfs build failing).
>
> > Please see libbb/unarchive.c: extract_archive() and let me know if any
> > of the failures there which set "err = -1" should be downgraded to
> > warnings. Previously these conditions were not failure conditions only
> > because they could not be *by design*.
>
> > Maybe you want more sanity checks (e.g. Issue 28) instead of fewer?
>
> I think for 0.1.7 I'd like them to be warnings, we can change them to
> errors afterwards.
>
> regards,
>
> Koen

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opkg-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to opkg-devel@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opkg-devel+unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opkg-devel?hl=en.