From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Hoffmann Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:46:26 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] libtool version update 2.4.2 In-Reply-To: <20121111230546.709735e3@skate> References: <1352464732-22984-1-git-send-email-alexander@mezon.ru> <20121110105308.740a3bfa@skate> <50A02018.1000804@mind.be> <20121111230546.709735e3@skate> Message-ID: <50A0A952.5090001@relinux.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Am 11.11.2012 23:05, schrieb Thomas Petazzoni: > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:00:56 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> On 11/10/12 10:53, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >>> Alexander, >>> >>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:38:52 +0400, Alexander Khryukin wrote: >>> >>>> -LIBTOOL_VERSION = 2.2.10 >>>> +LIBTOOL_VERSION = 2.4.2 >>> How much testing did you give to this version bump? A libtool >>> version bump is a very sensitive operation, as host-libtool is used >>> to autoreconfigure many packages in Buildroot. Therefore, this >>> patch needs a good amount of testing before being committed >>> (ideally testing that all packages having_AUTORECONF = YES >>> still build). >> Can't we rely on the autobuilders to do that? > Sure, we'll certainly rely on the autobuilders for a complete testing. Hello, did you ever think about inventing a kind of "testing" branch with a seperate autobuilder running on? That could keep major build problems away from the master branch. Just my 2 cents Stephan > But I wanted to know if it had been tested again 2 packages or 20-40 > packages, which makes quite a bit of difference :) > >> That said, I wouldn't do this for 2012.11 anymore... > For sure, it should not be part of 2012.11, we already have enough > issues to fix. > > Thomas -- reLinux - Stephan Hoffmann Am Schmidtgrund 124 50765 K?ln Tel. +49.221.95595-19 Fax: -64 www.reLinux.de sho at reLinux.de