From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:23:25 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] defconfigs with upstream kernels In-Reply-To: <20170814051324.fsb7vyp3pc2bcsnq@sapphire.tkos.co.il> References: <20170814051324.fsb7vyp3pc2bcsnq@sapphire.tkos.co.il> Message-ID: <20170814102325.33d2b25a@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:13:24 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > > Any objections to switching all upstream boards to LATEST? > > I don't think this is a good idea. > > The kernel and bootloaders are special in that their correct operation depends > on many little platform specific details that tend to break frequently between > releases because of unrelated code changes. Even worse. Due to the time lag > between the patch post time and merge time, a new config might be broken by > merge time, not to mention Buildroot release time. In this case the Buildroot > user will not have a chance to go back to see when things broke. > > Now, I know you could say the same about gcc/binutils/libc. But I think there > is a difference. The toolchain is far less platform specific. Toolchain > components also see less frequent releases. As you noted, the breaks we have > recently seen were mostly caused by the now reverted choice to hard-code > specific gcc versions into the code. > > In sum, I think that hardware specific config should refer to a specific known > good and tested versions of the kernel and the bootloader (when applicable). > Alternatively, at the very leasts, the commit log must include these details. I agree with Baruch. Nothing else to say, he perfectly expressed my opinion on this topic. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com