[Buildroot] legacy sources in svn

[Buildroot] legacy sources in svn

[Nigel Kukard]

Is there a reason for example that there are removed gcc versions still
in toolchain/gcc/x.y.z ?

Are they kept there incase someone needs to build an older version?

Surely they can get the old patches from svn? I mean, the versions are
mostly removed from all Config.in and .mk files anyway?

Or maybe I"m missing something obvious?

-N
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20080328/cae9f5b5/attachment-0001.pgp 

[Buildroot] legacy sources in svn

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Nigel" == Nigel Kukard <nkukard@lbsd.net> writes:

 Nigel> Is there a reason for example that there are removed gcc
 Nigel> versions still in toolchain/gcc/x.y.z ?

 Nigel> Are they kept there incase someone needs to build an older version?

I think people simply forget to remove them when they remove the
Kconfig stuff - I have lately been cleaning up the uClibc patches that
weren't used any more.

 Nigel> Surely they can get the old patches from svn? I mean, the
 Nigel> versions are mostly removed from all Config.in and .mk files
 Nigel> anyway?

Exactly, feel free to remove them.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] legacy sources in svn

[Will Newton]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@uclibc.org> wrote:
> >>>>> "Nigel" == Nigel Kukard <nkukard@lbsd.net> writes:
>
>   Nigel> Is there a reason for example that there are removed gcc
>   Nigel> versions still in toolchain/gcc/x.y.z ?
>
>   Nigel> Are they kept there incase someone needs to build an older version?
>
>  I think people simply forget to remove them when they remove the
>  Kconfig stuff - I have lately been cleaning up the uClibc patches that
>  weren't used any more.
>
>   Nigel> Surely they can get the old patches from svn? I mean, the
>   Nigel> versions are mostly removed from all Config.in and .mk files
>   Nigel> anyway?
>
>  Exactly, feel free to remove them.

I have some concerns about this. People may want to keep stable
toolchains to avoid bugs in newer versions or for QA purposes.
Removing working configurations in the name of "tidying up" sounds
like a bad idea to me.

[Buildroot] legacy sources in svn

[Nigel Kukard]

> >
> >  I think people simply forget to remove them when they remove the
> >  Kconfig stuff - I have lately been cleaning up the uClibc patches
> that
> >  weren't used any more.
> >
> >   Nigel> Surely they can get the old patches from svn? I mean, the
> >   Nigel> versions are mostly removed from all Config.in and .mk
> files
> >   Nigel> anyway?
> >
> >  Exactly, feel free to remove them.
> 
> I have some concerns about this. People may want to keep stable
> toolchains to avoid bugs in newer versions or for QA purposes.
> Removing working configurations in the name of "tidying up" sounds
> like a bad idea to me.

The versions I'm referring to aren't even available in the menuconfig,
nor is there any config for them in the makefiles or config.in magic
anymore.


-N
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20080329/a67fd1c9/attachment.pgp 

[Buildroot] legacy sources in svn

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

 >> Exactly, feel free to remove them.

 Will> I have some concerns about this. People may want to keep stable
 Will> toolchains to avoid bugs in newer versions or for QA purposes.
 Will> Removing working configurations in the name of "tidying up" sounds
 Will> like a bad idea to me.

The question was about removing old patches that aren't used (the
versions cannot be selected) anymore.

Regarding updating versions - We do that all the time (and have to do
so as bugs are found in old versions or they simply no longer
available upstream). If you want to keep a stable environment, you
should simply not update your buildroot snapshot.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard