From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:19:01 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/3] xenomai: bump version to 3.0.3 In-Reply-To: <7f8f513c-d847-5b70-c084-6538c3a6af43@mind.be> References: <20170320233349.14057-1-sikor6@gmail.com> <20170320234014.6ad3182f@free-electrons.com> <7f8f513c-d847-5b70-c084-6538c3a6af43@mind.be> Message-ID: <20170321101901.1bfbc40e@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 Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:57:35 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > My understanding was that Xenomai 3.x was significantly different from > > Xenomai 2.x. Should we support both versions? Is Xenomai 3.x now old > > enough that Xenomai 2.x is considered legacy? What problems will people > > currently using Xenomai 2.x face if we ask them to move to Xenomai 3.x? > > There are some API differences, but (at least in dual-kernel mode), it is > pretty easy to port over. I think we have lots of packages where version bumps > introduce slight behavioural changes so I think this is OK. OK, thanks. As long as it doesn't require people having Xenomai applications to do a full rewrite, then I'm fine with a bump to 3.X as opposed to supporting both 2.x and 3.x. Minor adaptations are OK, just like is often needed when upgrading libraries, as you said. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com