From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:59:28 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/5] package/cmake: re-introduce cmake-3.7 In-Reply-To: <1e11d59e-9274-f4fb-f966-002c26ca6247@mind.be> References: <1e11d59e-9274-f4fb-f966-002c26ca6247@mind.be> Message-ID: <20170301085928.6380ed25@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:49:47 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > I don't think it makes much sense to keep the 4 separate patches. The history > shows the authorship of the original bump. Having the 4 separate patches just > adds noise to the history. Also, Thomas reported that the libuv dependency > introduced by the bump is probably incorrect, so we'd have to revert patch 4/5 > and part of patch 2/5 again later on... And if the dependency on libuv *is* > needed, then you re-introduce a non-bisectable commit between patch 2/5 and 4/5. Well, the libuv dependency is incorrect in the sense that ctest doesn't seem to use libuv. *However*, the libuv dependency is correct in the sense that the CMakeLists.txt checks it, and if not, builds the cmake built-in version of libuv. But since for the target we only build ctest, this whole libuv is not used. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com