From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: add 2.19 as a supported version
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:05:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52F9D9D0.8090409@mind.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140210234117.352533a5@skate>
On 02/10/14 23:41, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:29:59 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>
>> How useful is it to offer a choice for the libc version?
>>
>> For uClibc it makes a tiny bit of sense because you may have custom
>> patches or a custom config, which you don't want to port when going to a
>> new buildroot version. But I don't think that's a very good reason to
>> begin with.
>>
>> For glibc, however, I really don't see a reason to keep multiple versions.
>
> My plan was to offer no more than two versions: N-1 and N, so that we
> can add N, and give it some testing before having all users move
I don't think there will be a lot of testing happening there...
> immediately from N-1 to N. This is pretty much what we do with gcc,
> binutils and gdb as well. I believe the toolchain components are quite
> critical, that's why we're a bit more conservative with these than with
> the other components.
>
> Do we have a reason to keep multiple versions for binutils, gcc and
> gdb, but not for glibc?
No, I don't think we have a reason to keep multiple versions for
binutils, gdb, and also busybox BTW.
For gcc it's a bit more appropriate. I have seen (proprietary) packages
that fail to build with a different gcc version - usually because of
-Werror and different warnings in -Wall.
Having multiple versions also means that you need:
- multiple autobuilder instances (preferably for all architectures) to
cover both versions;
- legacy stuff for the old versions;
- a deprecation path for the old versions.
So it's really quite a bit of overhead for IMHO limited advantage.
Regards,
Arnout
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
--
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-11 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-10 17:43 [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: add 2.19 as a supported version Thomas Petazzoni
2014-02-10 20:29 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-02-10 22:41 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-02-11 8:05 ` Arnout Vandecappelle [this message]
2014-02-11 8:19 ` Peter Korsgaard
2014-02-11 8:32 ` [Buildroot] Supporting multiple versions of toolchain components? Thomas Petazzoni
2014-02-11 17:16 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-02-12 8:03 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-02-12 8:43 ` Peter Korsgaard
2014-02-12 17:37 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-02-12 21:38 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-02-13 22:01 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: add 2.19 as a supported version Peter Korsgaard
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=52F9D9D0.8090409@mind.be \
--to=arnout@mind.be \
--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