From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:33:51 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/libnspr: bump to version 4.25, add xtensa support In-Reply-To: References: <20200201084758.285234-1-bernd.kuhls@t-online.de> <20200201102425.1556253b@windsurf> Message-ID: <20200204093351.6393df15@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:25:46 +0100 Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > I don't feel very strongly about it, but I'm wondering if it doesn't > > make sense to keep BR2_PACKAGE_LIBNSPR_ARCH_SUPPORT. There is some > > architecture-specific code in libnpsr, so every time we add a new CPU > > architecture, we would have to poentially re-add this hidden option. > > For what it's worth, I agree with doing that. We don't want to end up in the > libffi situation... Agreed. Though I don't think libnspr will ever be in the situation of libffi, with zillions of reverse dependencies. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com