From: Gustavo Zacarias <gustavo@zacarias.com.ar>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] bump libnl to 3.2.21 before release
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:06:14 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51214646.5080304@zacarias.com.ar> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5121441D.5040506@siganos.org>
On 02/17/2013 05:57 PM, Dimitrios Siganos wrote:
> There is no problem that I can't work around but it is an inconvenience
> that can be avoided.
>
> How am I affected? We do binary releases of our software applications
> and 3.2.18 doesn't work for us and we'd have to release a special
> version for that or create a patch for buildroot.
Binary releases as in a sepparate/propietary app that's only shipped as
a binary? (not built with buildroot and/or not able to share the source).
I'm not asking because of any licensing crazyiness, it's perfectly
valid, just want to understand the scenario.
> The important thing to note here is that version 3.2.18 broke backwards
> compatibility and version 3.2.20 restored it. For example, v3.2.16 is
> compatible with 3.2.21 but 3.2.18 isn't compatible with either of them.
>
> If there is no specific reason to stay at 3.2.18 then why not go to
> 3.2.21 and spare some buildroot users (the ones that operate in mixed
> open/closed source) from that unnecessary libnl hassle?
Well the binary compatibility isn't an issue for typical buildroot
scenarios, that's why i'm asking what i asked.
The changelog entry is a typical linux distribution issue where you just
upgrade individual components when necessary.
That's usually not what buildroot is about, you're building a root
filesystem (in simplified terms) so your upgrade path is usually a
complete image upgrade, call it firmware, flash or disk image.
Hence ABI compatibility doesn't matter.
Understand i'm hesitant to bump libnl this close to the release unless
there's a really pressing issue - libnl bumps usually break packages
subtly and this requires testing.
And it also breaks every other release with varying linux headers when
new features are introduced (like CAN support).
Regards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-17 21:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-17 18:49 [Buildroot] bump libnl to 3.2.21 before release Dimitrios Siganos
2013-02-17 18:55 ` Gustavo Zacarias
2013-02-17 20:57 ` Dimitrios Siganos
2013-02-17 21:06 ` Gustavo Zacarias [this message]
2013-02-17 23:06 ` Dimitrios Siganos
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51214646.5080304@zacarias.com.ar \
--to=gustavo@zacarias.com.ar \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.