Release Notes for 0.6.0: http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/opkg/opkg-0.6.0.release-notes Signed-off-by: Alex Stewart <alex.stewart@...> --- meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/{opkg_0.5.0.bb => opk

I'm not sure I'm on-board with embedding markdown into the commit. But I can definitely link to the release notes from within the commit body. Patch V2 incoming.

Here are the release notes from 0.5.0 -> 0.6.0. http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/opkg/opkg-0.6.0.release-notes ``` Release Notes for opkg-0.6.0 ==== ### Changed - When using package signatur

Signed-off-by: Alex Stewart <alex.stewart@...> --- meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/{opkg_0.5.0.bb => opkg_0.6.0.bb} | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) rename meta/recipes-devtools/opkg

When OE-core commit 788c95c3bb8ede0d3d6a8f125743ac47c0b3f00e created the `sudo-lib` subpackage, /etc/sudoers was moved from `sudo` to `sudo-lib`. The commit didn't update the `CONFFILES:${PN}` assignm

Converging threads. Thanks all for the feedback. It sounds like there's no appetite for a DKMS recipe, and I agree with the rationale for rejection. I'll motion to have NI's DKMS recipe migrated to ou

Yeah; I agree. In our case, we have several dozen drivers split across many product teams and largely distributing internally-controlled source. At this stage, it isn't feasible for us to build them a

Hey List, I'm trying to work out the mysterious state of DKMS in OE-Core. Our (NI) OE distributions rely heavily on DKMS to (un)install our ecosystem of kernel drivers at runtime across our product li

Patch looks good to me! ACK all. Thanks,

You beat me to posting my own recipe upgrade commit. :) Toward the bottom of the opkg_*.bb recipe file is a `package_qa_check_openssl_deprecation` function which I added in the 0.4.5 release to warn B

I tend to agree; hence why I wrote it that way in the original patch. But I'm not going to defend the practice in this case, so ACK from me either way. I'm intending to drop this recipe warning after

That's helpful info; thanks. I'll paste it to the bug in the opkg bugzilla and we can continue tracking there.

Yep; I understand all of that and agree. My goal here is just to make sure that the bug is filed to the correct location. As it stands, the only description of the error is from OE's perspective, and

Hey Rasmus, Sorry for the delay; I was OOO for the holidays and I'm just now working through my inbox. Could you expand a bit on how OE is supposed to fail when the kernel module package is unsatisfia

Feed signature checking with OpenSSL will be deprecated in the next release of opkg. Upstream ML Announcement: https://groups.google.com/g/opkg-devel/c/drqw5_HuXuU The opkg-0.4.5 configure.ac already

Drop patches which have been accepted upstream. Signed-off-by: Alex Stewart <alex.stewart@...> --- ...e-OS-negotiate-relative-package-dirs.patch | 43 ------------------- .../opkg/opkg/sourcedateepo

Signed-off-by: Alex Stewart <alex.stewart@...> --- .../opkg-utils/{opkg-utils_0.4.3.bb => opkg-utils_0.4.5.bb} | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) rename meta/recipes-devtools/

Hey Richard, The new patch on master-next looks good. Could you submit it to the opkg-devel ML, so that I can pull it from there? Thanks!

ACK the objective, but I have a couple concerns about the patch below. Is this `1607...` timestamp just some leftover pollution in the configure.ac file or does it serve some purpose? AutoConf doesn't

Include an upstream patch for 0.4.4 which fixes a test framework error that occurs on host systems with symlinked /tmp directories (like OE). Signed-off-by: Alex Stewart <alex.stewart@...> --- ...e