From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl ([178.33.81.99]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tkxg9-0000sj-CA for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:57:54 +0100 Received: by tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9F3ACD22E9; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:43:06 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from [192.168.1.112] (87-206-60-225.dynamic.chello.pl [87.206.60.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl) by tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F7C3D22B4; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:41:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50D0729C.2090703@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:41:48 +0100 From: Marcin Juszkiewicz Organization: Linaro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Ashfield References: <1355220771-32095-1-git-send-email-marcin.juszkiewicz@linaro.org> <1355828839.18874.8.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: Add 3.7 version of linux-libc-headers X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:57:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit W dniu 18.12.2012 14:32, Bruce Ashfield pisze: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Richard Purdie On Tue, 2012-12-11 at >> 05:52 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz >>> I would like to know are there plans to use 3.7 kernel for libc >>> headers. This will allow me to drop own copy which I need to keep >>> due to AArch64 stuff which got added in 3.7 cycle. >> As I understand things we agreed that we'd not bump for point >> releases on the headers unless there was some pressing reason too. >> The rest of the policy for kernel headers is a bit more fuzzy. >> >> For actual major version increments like this, I'm tempted to accept >> that in this case we have a good argument for updating to 3.7 and >> even though the linux-yocto kernels will lag behind this for a >> (short) while, it shouldn't make any real world difference to >> anything, certainly not cause breakage. > Right, they'll lag, but then jump and increment it to 3.8+. The dev > kernel is already on 3.7 and currently building and working fine > against the 3.4.x libc-headers. I need 3.7 for AArch64 as this is first version which has support for it. >> There isn't any technical reason we have to keep in lockstep, or any >> known issues with doing that with these versions, right? I know you >> have been burnt in the past but that was quite a while ago and the >> kernel/toolchain communities have moved to address that? > I've definitely been burt in the past, I admit to being a little > nervous about 3.7 sideffects due to the uapi split in the kernel .. > and right around the Holidays, I'm a bit more paranoid about bringing > this in. I'd rather be full time at my keyboard, just in case > something subtle breaks. Remember that even when l-l-h 3.7 will be present in repo 3.4 can be still used as default one. > If we bring this in, I'd prefer to completely drop the 3.4 kernel > headers, since having just one recipe in the tree make sense, and it > won't tempt us to start having a trail of one libc-header per kernel > version (since there's always a layer somewhere that's using a given > version). > What about a middle ground ? I can pull this into my tree, since I'm > doing some 3.8 and 3.4-stable work at the moment, I'll remove the 3.4 > kernel headers and then submit it again as part of my queue with some > extra tests run ? I am fine with it.