From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Schoenert Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:34:58 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/4] directfb: bumping version to 1.6.3 In-Reply-To: <20130310113224.4e3dbb2a@skate> References: <1362908858-6340-1-git-send-email-c.schoenert@gmail.com> <1362908858-6340-2-git-send-email-c.schoenert@gmail.com> <20130310113224.4e3dbb2a@skate> Message-ID: <513C7DF2.9090005@googlemail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Thomas, Am 10.03.2013 11:32, schrieb Thomas Petazzoni: > This looks good. However, we have a number of packages that depend or > can use DirectFB: cairo, directfb-examples, libecore, libevas, libgtk2, > links, lite, gst-plugins-bad, opencv, qt, sawman, sdl, webkit. Did you > test if those still build after this DirectFB bump? I have no idea if > the DirectFB bump from 1.4.x to 1.6.x is a major bump (like with API > breakage) or a minor bump. Depending on that, some testing of the > packages using DirectFB would be needed, or not. Ah yes, good point! I'll pick up some of these packages an will do some tests. But I have to look once again to the config of directfb itself, I think there will have changed some configure options between this different versions of directfb. This point comes right now in mind. > Note that we don't necessarily require all those packages to continue > to build with DirectFB 1.6.x: if those packages haven't adapted to the > new DirectFB versions, then it's an upstream problem. However, if some > of those packages don't build, it would be good to update their > Config.in to ensure that the DirectFB variant is no longer offered/used. Indeed, there will hopefully be not to much packages affected. It depends a little bit on the test locally or done by the autobuilders. > Also, do just a reasonable amount of testing: our autobuilders will > anyway do a global testing of many combinations. But it's good to at > least check a few packages. If they work fine with the DirectFB bump, > then it's a good indication that the DirectFB bump probably didn't > introduce too much API breakage. That's good, I can here just check the build with my arm toolchain. ;) O.k. now I need some time to readjust the patchset, thanks for your suggestions! Regards Carsten