From: Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>
To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH,V2 0/6] libtool 2.4 upgrade
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:37:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <i8pgl5$8n1$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikLT9ZRLbnbGQ17AN5u0TiXdweP7HKH-QuLBH_E@mail.gmail.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09-10-10 00:21, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks <
> fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2010/10/7 Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
>>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>
>> wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 07-10-10 03:46, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Following set of patches is v2 of the patches adding support for
>> getting libtool 2.4 into
>>>>> openemebedded. I have so far built minimal-image for two machines
>> successfully using old
>>>>> and new libtool.
>>>>>
>>>>> The libtool sysroot feature knob is added through LIBTOOL_HAS_SYSROOT
>> variable. If this is
>>>>> set to "yes" then you ought to use libtool > 2.4 by default its set to
>> "no" which means
>>>>> the current behavior remains.
>>>>>
>>>>> The big change that libtool 2.4 brings is sysroot support and I have
>> added
>>>>> support to use this feature. It should make our life easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> This needs a lot of testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please cherry pick the patch bundle and give it a try in yout
>> environment
>>>>
>>>> Can you apply these to a branch so we can add fixes there if needed?
>>>
>>> I can do that. However now that backward compatibility is left intact I
>> think
>>> it would not be that bad to merge it into master and fix things on
>>> master. the libtool
>>> 2.4 would have DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1" by default it wont be picked by
>> anyone.
>>> with the number of developers we have it will get better testing before
>> we
>>> accumulate too many changes on a branch. Secondly there might be changes
>> like
>>> gnutls one where the patch is only valid for new libtool and should be
>> tested
>>> in old and new way. If there is any breakage introduced in existing build
>> will
>>> be caught quickly. Where as on branch resources might be divided and it
>> may
>>> not progress so well. I am just weighing efforts Vs. risk here and
>>> risk seems low
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Khem
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Personally I'm in favour of merging into head. That way it gets
>> accepted easier and faster.
>>
>
> Agreed, I am as well. As the new libtool is opt-in, I don't see the harm,
> and it'll ensure that any issues which crop up with the compatibility get
> fixed asap.
Yeah, let's get this in!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFMsEXlMkyGM64RGpERAsjyAKCc6eHVMBOfE27SW20BiCWvs7mdXACfYG6I
1zsti6PHxpCCOGHvqWBw4zI=
=4QWi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-09 10:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-07 1:46 [PATCH,V2 0/6] libtool 2.4 upgrade Khem Raj
2010-10-07 1:46 ` [PATCH,V2 1/6] libtool-2.4: Add recipes for libtool 2.4 Khem Raj
2010-10-07 1:46 ` [PATCH,V2 2/6] bitbake.conf: Define LIBTOOL_HAS_SYSROOT Khem Raj
2010-10-07 1:46 ` [PATCH, V2 3/6] autotools.bbclass: Conditionally use autotools_prepackage_lamangler Khem Raj
2010-10-07 1:46 ` [PATCH, V2 4/6] cross.bbclass, staging.bbclass, utils.bbclass: Make sure that .la munging is not done for libtool > 2.4 Khem Raj
2010-10-07 1:46 ` [PATCH, V2 5/6] insane.bbclass: If LIBTOOL_HAS_SYSROOT is set then do not check for la insanity Khem Raj
2010-10-07 1:46 ` [PATCH, V2 6/6] gnutls_2.10.1.bb: Update to libtools 2.4 macros Khem Raj
2010-10-07 7:56 ` [PATCH,V2 0/6] libtool 2.4 upgrade Koen Kooi
2010-10-07 18:31 ` Khem Raj
2010-10-07 22:56 ` Graham Gower
2010-10-07 23:16 ` Graham Gower
2010-10-08 20:48 ` Frans Meulenbroeks
2010-10-08 22:21 ` Chris Larson
2010-10-09 10:37 ` Koen Kooi [this message]
2010-10-09 11:37 ` Martin Jansa
2010-10-09 14:31 ` Khem Raj
2010-10-09 15:15 ` Koen Kooi
2010-10-09 16:45 ` Frans Meulenbroeks
2010-10-11 13:13 ` Koen Kooi
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='i8pgl5$8n1$1@dough.gmane.org' \
--to=k.kooi@student.utwente.nl \
--cc=openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
/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.