From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PC6OT-0005Iz-R8 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:02:30 +0200 Received: by fxm3 with SMTP id 3so3845967fxm.6 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 01:01:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GB3R6Q5vVDIdCwIUoqgoIOkT5BB0f1IiRtn7LfpEKpc=; b=OzU3/OHSjuo1BsV0iOBjCqVpO+5wam9BT/sStlmBUWWHvqwqhkpkZe28QJreRiBT7+ Sxs6vr4VuQUtkO49hjzNiJkr+phNiC1NwRDwRpGJ+GpDZicArXfHt+8wScOnH8HcH4Mn IP64XUhHWPN84nbrf8euD8qH+dkNTyg7fZ1QI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=ddn0PNFZrtW2l1b4RFO0zsp3HGjFBE1dW7VuwjxVEFRkC6/VImMg31LnkdvkYhWLrY FjpollpWlsu0/o8lrNr6zy8ZcyrxkFn/TzJ+XSYXrOEOLYyW5aGzE+CAfR82VxqPStj/ 1q36d2BD5gQ+hsmfQIRheMOBIEW086GkiW3bA= Received: by 10.223.101.206 with SMTP id d14mr4884707fao.128.1288425703657; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 01:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (161-24.13.24.78.awnet.cz [78.24.13.161]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 16sm1452723fal.0.2010.10.30.01.01.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 30 Oct 2010 01:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:01:38 +0200 From: Martin Jansa To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20101030080138.GB3206@jama> References: <20101029191718.GA27520@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20101029191718.GA27520@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.161.47 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: martin.jansa@gmail.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [RFC] Toolchain recipes, versions, removal and consolidation X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:02:30 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:17:18PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > Hi > > There are so many versions of toolchain components gcc/binutils/glibc that > we have in metadata. I would like to reduce the number and keep supporting > the ones we really use. Right now we have recipes for > > binutils = 2.14.90.0.6,2.14.90.0.7, 2.15.94.0.1, 2.16, 2.16.1, 2.16.91.0.6, > 2.16.91.0.7, 2.17, 2.17.50.1, 2.17.50.0.5, 2.17.50.0.8, 2.17.50.0.12, 2.18, > 2.18.50.0.7, 2.18.atmel.1.0.1, 2.19, 2.19.1, 2.19.51, 2.19.51.0.3, 2.20, > 2.20.1, cvs > > gcc = 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.6, 4.0.0, 4.0.2, 4.1.0, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, > 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, > 4.4.4, 4.5, csl-arm-2007q3, csl-arm-2008q1, csl-arm-2008q3 > > glibc = 2.2.5, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.5+cvs20050627, 2.5, 2.6.1, 2.9, 2.10.1, > cvs > > uclibc = 0.9.28, 0.9.29, 0.9.30, 0.9.30.1, 0.9.30.2, 0.9.30.3, 0.9.31, git > > > eglibc = 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, svn > > They all use common files. So whenever there is a bugfix needed its a very > hard job to first create a common fix that works across all versions > secondly verify if it works and I am sure 80% of recipe versions mentioned > here dont even build > > So I am going to propose to remove most of them which dont build and > request the distro and machine maintainers to please update the list of > toolchain components to keep. > > Please voice which versions should we really really keep. This should be a > set which is buildable and functional. For me sane-toolchain versions + newer are enough. More users of same versions will provide better testing and in the end better toolchain for all. Regards, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com