From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:41:17 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: add 2.19 as a supported version In-Reply-To: <52F936C7.4040300@mind.be> References: <1392054226-20285-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <52F936C7.4040300@mind.be> Message-ID: <20140210234117.352533a5@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Arnout Vandecappelle, On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:29:59 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > How useful is it to offer a choice for the libc version? > > For uClibc it makes a tiny bit of sense because you may have custom > patches or a custom config, which you don't want to port when going to a > new buildroot version. But I don't think that's a very good reason to > begin with. > > For glibc, however, I really don't see a reason to keep multiple versions. My plan was to offer no more than two versions: N-1 and N, so that we can add N, and give it some testing before having all users move immediately from N-1 to N. This is pretty much what we do with gcc, binutils and gdb as well. I believe the toolchain components are quite critical, that's why we're a bit more conservative with these than with the other components. Do we have a reason to keep multiple versions for binutils, gcc and gdb, but not for glibc? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com