From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC] [PATCH v2 2/2] support/kconfig: Bump to kconfig from Linux 4.17-rc2
Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 16:50:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180520165009.56b44d9b@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180520144141.GB3453@scaer>
Hello,
On Sun, 20 May 2018 16:41:41 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> I initially did not reply further to this part, becuase I seem to
> remember that there was a change in behavious with certain versions of
> flex/bison, that made the output change drastically, and I was afraid we
> could be bitten by this...
>
> But in the end, this is not a problem, because we would not care to
> mix-n-match files built with different versions of said tools, as they
> would be those from the distro, always, and never those we ship, since
> we would no longer ship them.
>
> And eventually, I now remember that the issue was with gperf changing
> its API (a function prototype changed), and that was causing pain. But
> now, kconfig no longer uses gperf to start with, so no incompatibility
> anymore anyway.
>
> Which would allow us to drop the dependency of linux on host-{flex,bison}
> that we had to add recently.
If we start relying on the system-installed flex and bison, then we
should remove host-flex and host-bison entirely, not only for the linux
package. The question is whether bison and flex both behave in a
reasonably similar way regardless of which version is used.
When I see that even "tar" does not have a sufficiently stable
behavior (which forces us to build host-tar), I'm a bit worried about
more complex tools such as flex and bison.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-20 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-09 16:44 [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/2] support/kconfig: Add missing target to README.buildroot Petr Vorel
2018-05-09 16:44 ` [Buildroot] [RFC] [PATCH v2 2/2] support/kconfig: Bump to kconfig from Linux 4.17-rc2 Petr Vorel
2018-05-19 21:03 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-05-20 5:05 ` Petr Vorel
2018-05-20 14:23 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-05-20 14:31 ` Petr Vorel
2018-05-20 14:41 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-05-20 14:50 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2018-05-22 21:22 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-05-28 20:37 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-05-29 10:44 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-05-29 17:04 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-07-30 13:04 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-07-31 7:55 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-07-31 8:06 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-07-31 8:20 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-08-01 19:42 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-08-01 20:20 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-08-02 11:02 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-08-02 17:10 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-08-03 16:24 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-05-09 16:46 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/2] support/kconfig: Add missing target to README.buildroot Petr Vorel
2018-05-13 20:09 ` Thomas Petazzoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180520165009.56b44d9b@windsurf \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox