From 28144187dac0bb38d6a34e9b2640fb9f4dce6e10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Scott Rifenbark <scott.m.rifenbark@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:39:02 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] ref-manual: Added the version-going-backwards test to insane

Added this new test to the insane.bbclass section.  Also put
in a reference in the migration section back to the new
entry.

(From yocto-docs rev: 32e25547b439030b93d9bc72bdce916eded518b4)

Signed-off-by: Scott Rifenbark <scott.m.rifenbark@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 documentation/ref-manual/migration.xml   |  3 +++
 documentation/ref-manual/ref-classes.xml | 15 +++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/documentation/ref-manual/migration.xml b/documentation/ref-manual/migration.xml
index af7eed3892..83e5db3cd3 100644
--- a/documentation/ref-manual/migration.xml
+++ b/documentation/ref-manual/migration.xml
@@ -683,6 +683,9 @@
                     this check performed, you should add
                     "version-going-backwards" to your value for one or the
                     other variables depending on how you wish it to be handled.
+                    See the documented QA checks in the
+                    "<link linkend='ref-classes-insane'><filename>insane.bbclass</filename></link>"
+                    section. 
                     </para></listitem>
             </itemizedlist>
         </para>
diff --git a/documentation/ref-manual/ref-classes.xml b/documentation/ref-manual/ref-classes.xml
index 83d4c1bf85..2743059c0c 100644
--- a/documentation/ref-manual/ref-classes.xml
+++ b/documentation/ref-manual/ref-classes.xml
@@ -797,6 +797,21 @@
             <listitem><para><emphasis><filename>perms:</filename></emphasis>
                 Currently, this check is unused but reserved.
                 </para></listitem>
+            <listitem><para><emphasis><filename>version-going-backwards:</filename></emphasis>
+                If Build History is enabled, reports when a package
+                being written out has a lower version than the previously 
+                written package under the same name.
+                If you are placing output packages into a feed and
+                upgrading packages on a target system using that feed, the 
+                version of a package going backwards can result in the target 
+                system not correctly upgrading to the "new" version of the 
+                package. 
+                <note>
+                    If you are not using runtime package management on your 
+                    target system, then you do not need to worry about
+                    this situation.
+                </note>
+                </para></listitem>
         </itemizedlist>
     </para>
 </section>