smart-venc-ctrl-algo: update from 1.0 -> 1.0.1

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

This tag v1.0.1 brings below changes:

• Add CHANGES file
• Replace NO.LOGIN.BINARY.LICENSE.QTI with LICENSE.qcom-2 file

Update LIC_FILES_CHKSUM in recipe accordingly to reference the new license file and its checksum.

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

This PR is fixing the following issue. Please review.
#2614

[github-actions]

Test run workflow

Test jobs for commit 5da83aa

nodistro
Pass: 10 | Fail: 0 | Total: 10

qcom-distro
Pass: 306 | Fail: 8 | Total: 342

qcom-distro_linux-qcom-6.18
Pass: 234 | Fail: 0 | Total: 259

[test-reporting-app]

Test Results

  117 files  +   38    698 suites  +289   9h 26m 35s ⏱️ + 1h 5m 19s
  162 tests +    1    147 ✅ +   25   0 💤  -  1  15 ❌  - 23 
4 497 runs  +1 848  4 427 ✅ +1 875  53 💤 +22  17 ❌  - 49 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 5da83aa. ± Comparison against base commit 7b36365.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[qcomlnxci]

Test Coral run workflow

Test jobs for commit 0fe3044

• qcomdistro: multimedia image-prop
  Pass: 32 | Fail: 1 | Total: 33
• qcomdistro: multimedia image
  Pass: 9 | Fail: 0 | Total: 9

[Dmitry Baryshkov (lumag)]

You are not just updating the license. You are upgrading the recipe.

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

You are not just updating the license. You are upgrading the recipe.

I have updated the details regarding the recipe version upgrade. Could you please review it again?

[Dmitry Baryshkov (lumag)]

• Add CHANGES file

Is it the only change between versions? If so, why would we want to upgrade?

[Dmitry Baryshkov (lumag)]

Also, no, you are not updating the licence from 1.0 to 1.0.1 (nor you are updating the licence at all).

[qcomlnxci]

Test Coral run workflow

Test jobs for commit f8cd66d

• qcomdistro: multimedia image
  Pass: 9 | Fail: 0 | Total: 9
• qcomdistro: multimedia image-prop
  Pass: 47 | Fail: 1 | Total: 48

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

• Add CHANGES file

Is it the only change between versions? If so, why would we want to upgrade?

CHANGES file is mandatory as per the latest artifactory guidelines.
Although the binaries are unchanged, the contents of the release artifact have changed due to the CHANGES file update. Since the distributed tarball is no longer identical to the previously released 1.0 artifact, a revision bump up has been performed to 1.0.1. If that's not required, could you please clarify the expected versioning policy for such updates?

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

Also, no, you are not updating the licence from 1.0 to 1.0.1 (nor you are updating the licence at all).

Sorry, If my commit subject suggested otherwise, that was not the intent. The license itself is not being updated; the change only updates the recipe to reference a different license file and includes the version bump from 1.0 to 1.0.1. I'll reword the commit subject to make this clearer.

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

Also, no, you are not updating the licence from 1.0 to 1.0.1 (nor you are updating the licence at all).

Can I create two separate commits to make it more clearer?

Commit 2: Update the recipe to point the license file to the new version.
Commit 1: Update the recipe version & point to a new tarball

[Dmitry Baryshkov (lumag)]

Also, no, you are not updating the licence from 1.0 to 1.0.1 (nor you are updating the licence at all).

Can I create two separate commits to make it more clearer?

Commit 2: Update the recipe to point the license file to the new version. Commit 1: Update the recipe version & point to a new tarball

Order commits correctly.

• Add CHANGES file

Is it the only change between versions? If so, why would we want to upgrade?

To answer. No, it is not the only change. You have changed the licence packed in the source file. So your commit message is incorrect. Also see https://docs.yoctoproject.org/nanbield/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.html#license-updates

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

Order commits correctly.

Isn't it the correct order? Because the commit 1 brings the license file and the same will be used in commit 2.

[Dmitry Baryshkov (lumag)]

Order commits correctly.

Isn't it the correct order? Because the commit 1 brings the license file and the same will be used in commit 2.

You can't do that, each commit must work on its own.

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

Order commits correctly.

Isn't it the correct order? Because the commit 1 brings the license file and the same will be used in commit 2.

You can't do that, each commit must work on its own.

You are right. In either order, one of the commits would break the build. Keeping both changes in a single commit seems to be the right approach.

I have reworded the commit message as per the guidelines. Could you please review it once?

Regarding the new license file, I compared it with the previous version and found an additional paragraph related to export control and regulatory compliance requirements. I have captured this in the License-Update section.

[qcomlnxci]

Test Coral run workflow

Test jobs for commit 11ad9e1

• qcomdistro: multimedia image
  Pass: 9 | Fail: 0 | Total: 9
• qcomdistro: multimedia image-prop
  Pass: 31 | Fail: 0 | Total: 31

[Dmitry Baryshkov (lumag)]

License-Update: Add export control and regulatory compliance
requirements, including references to U.S. Export Administration
Regulations.

License-Update is a tag, so it should fit one lline. Short your phrase.

Also see https://github.com/qualcomm-linux/meta-qcom/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md?plain=1#L27

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

License-Update: Add export control and regulatory compliance
requirements, including references to U.S. Export Administration
Regulations.

License-Update is a tag, so it should fit one lline. Short your phrase.

Also see https://github.com/qualcomm-linux/meta-qcom/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md?plain=1#L27

Addressed. The commit message has been reworked to follow the commit message guidelines, with the rationale described first and the change summary rewritten accordingly. The License-Update tag has also been shortened to a single-line description.

Thanks.

[Dmitry Baryshkov (lumag)]

Add the CHANGES file, replace

Which part of your changes is adding the CHANGED file and where?

[qcomlnxci]

Test Coral run workflow

Test jobs for commit 5da83aa

• qcomdistro: multimedia image-prop
  Pass: 48 | Fail: 0 | Total: 48
• qcomdistro: multimedia image
  Pass: 9 | Fail: 0 | Total: 9

[Murali Krishna Bellamkonda (muralibell)]

Add the CHANGES file, replace

Which part of your changes is adding the CHANGED file and where?

The CHANGES file comes from the v1.0.1 release, while this patch only updates the recipe and license checksum handling. Sorry, I mixed the release tar changes with the actual recipe changes.

Could you please advise whether I should remove this reference from the commit message, or if the CHANGES file is expected to be installed/packaged as part of this change?

[Dmitry Baryshkov (lumag)]

Add the CHANGES file, replace

Which part of your changes is adding the CHANGED file and where?

The CHANGES file comes from the v1.0.1 release, while this patch only updates the recipe and license checksum handling. Sorry, I mixed the release tar changes with the actual recipe changes.

This needs to be fixed.

Could you please advise whether I should remove this reference from the commit message,

Just describe everything clearly.

or if the CHANGES file is expected to be installed/packaged as part of this change?

No