From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pug.o-hand.com (3a.49.1343.static.theplanet.com [67.19.73.58]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4244C81065 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:57:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.0.7] (5ad4d7b0.bb.sky.com [90.212.215.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pug.o-hand.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F0412EC1CA for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:38:19 -0600 (CST) From: Joshua Lock To: poky@yoctoproject.org In-Reply-To: <4D38DFB5.3000907@intel.com> References: <4D38BC0B.7080501@intel.com> <4D38DFB5.3000907@intel.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:57:28 +0000 Message-ID: <1295600248.2382.10.camel@scimitar> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 (2.32.1-1.fc14) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] 2nd pull request: UX, gtk+/apr, Edwin, Jan19, 2011 X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:57:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:21 +0800, Zhai, Edwin wrote: > I am always challenged by the version checking system that why not > upgrade to latest version:( > See my comments below for these packages... > > Wold, Saul wrote: > > On 01/18/2011 04:46 PM, Zhai Edwin wrote: > > > >> Saul, > >> This is the 2nd pull request for gtk+,gdk-pixbuf,apr. Also added webkit-gtk. > >> Qemu upgrade is under test across all platforms, and will be out soon. > >> > >> > > > > > > Edwin, > > > > It was noticed that you updated a little too aggressively! For the > > gtk+, webkit, eds-dbus and glib, you moved to the development versions. > > > > In some open source project even releases are stable and odd releases > > are unstable, so in this case we want to go to the following: > > > > gtk+: 2.22.1 > > > > There is also 2.90.X there. And I treated it as development branch, and > stick to lower version. > I have compared between 2.22.1 and 2.23.2, and found no much difference. > One case is 2.23.2 support libtool 2.4, but 2.22.1 doesn't, so we may > have some autoconf issue there. Anyway, if you want to stick with stable > version， I can downgrade it to 2.22.1. GNOME version naming should be fairly well documented, version numbers are split into x.y.z components. The policy is Major.Minor.Release, with an odd minor number indicating a development release and an even minor number indicating a stable release. http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleRequirements/Platform 2.90.X is the development series for Gtk+3, a major release with no ABI guarantee to 2.x - though admittedly this seems to disagree with the versioning scheme above. If we're going to package 2.90.x it should be in addition to a 2.x release, be parallel installable and the recipe be named sufficiently to indicate that this is gtk+ 3. The 2.23.x unstable branch is towards making a new release of Gtk+ with the API/ABI guarantees of the 2.x series for people who are not in a position to upgrade to Gtk+3. Most distributions will ship 2 and 3 for at least a release or two while non-GNOME software is updated. > > > glib: 2.26.1 > > > > Dongxiao owned this? > > eds-dbus: 2.32 > > > > > My previous upgrade is 2.32.1. But with added nss/nspr, it's rejected. > Working is in progress. > > > webkit-gtk 1.2.6 > > > > Our poky seems never has stable release, and always use development > branch. Maybe we want some new feature? RP can comment. Another benefit > is development branch is under svn, so we can selectively pick some > modules instead of big whole repo. Given development branch, there is no > even/odd difference. > > I have a plan to change it to stable release with the cost of long > download & compile time, but I'm afraid can't make it in this release cycle. I think we need someone else to own downgrading this recipe for the next release then, we can't commit to a 6month stable cycle with an unstable software package. Do you have a handle on potential impact of downgrading this recipe? IIRC only the sato browser (web-webkit) is affected by this recipe? > > This is something we will need to review more carefully to know for sure > > which packages are even/odd stable/dev(or unstable) versioning. > > > > I will remind the whole team about this as well. > > Cheers, Joshua -- Joshua Lock Intel Open Source Technology Centre