From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:05:03 +0800 Subject: [Buildroot] Patchwork oldest patches cleanup #4 (deadline January 5) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140106130503.2df2a9ef@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 11:21:33 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > > libatomic_ops version update 7.3alpha2 old version 1.2 does not > > compiles with modern gcc and utils > > Alexander Khryukin > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/198133 > > No feedback, marked as rejected. I think bumping the version of a package is often useful, so I'm not sure I would mark this patch as rejected. Or if no one is pushing to bump libatomic_ops, then we should just assume no one cares, and therefore there's no point in keeping the patch around? > > [07/10] libffi: make thread support optional > > Thomas Petazzoni > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/199883 > > No feedback, marked as rejected. It's weird because I don't see libffi build failures in the autobuilders, even though there is one no thread ARM toolchain in the configurations. > > [4/4] gstreamer: replace gst-ffmpeg with gst-libav > > bogdan at nimblex.org > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/207431 > > No feedback, rejected. I'm a little bit concerned about how we reject patches here. Maybe replacing gst-ffmpeg by gst-libav makes sense and should be done? If we don't keep the patch around, we'll have no way to remember that it should be done at some point in the future. I admit that by doing this, we'll never shrink the list of pending patches, but I have the feeling that we might be missing useful ideas. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com