Re: [RFC] Toolchain recipes, versions, removal and consolidation

[Roman I Khimov <roman@khimov.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1496 bytes --]

В сообщении от Пятница 29 октября 2010 23:17:18 автор Khem Raj написал:
> 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

On 2.20.1 here, probably leaving 2.18+ should be fine, although quick grep at 
conf/ shows almost all versions pinned in some way.

> 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

Using 4.4.4, so technically not care about anything other than 4.4.x and 
4.5.x. But I think it's definitely time to kill 3.x. I'd opt for leaving 4.2+ 
and one patchlevel version per minor. Is there any real point in having 4 
4.2.x or 4.3.x versions?

> 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

Not using that, but I'd say that killing it completely maybe is a bit too 
much. 2.9+ or just one latest?

> 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

Using git. Leaving just 0.9.31 and git looks good to me.

> eglibc = 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, svn

Not using that, no opinion.

-- 
 http://roman.khimov.ru
mailto: roman@khimov.ru
gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 0xE5E055C3

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]