From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:27:47 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: bump default to version 2.23 In-Reply-To: <312f3b85fab01ed234da9ff79ac982d0@zacarias.com.ar> (Gustavo Zacarias's message of "Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:18:48 -0300") References: <1466590187-21862-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <87r3bpwa02.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <42d8119e5e64c7a67018770b3f029146@zacarias.com.ar> <20160622171317.79fbea7e@free-electrons.com> <312f3b85fab01ed234da9ff79ac982d0@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <877fdhw8ek.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Gustavo" == Gustavo Zacarias writes: > On 2016-06-22 12:13, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> Default to n-1 has been our tradition for gcc/binutils/glibc for ages. >> >>> We're using latest uclibc-ng if it's suitable/for example. >> >> Cause uclibc-ng doesn't evolve much beyond bug fixes at the moment, so >> there's not really a good reason to not use the latest version. >> >> Thomas > Hi. > There are outstanding security bugs that haven't been patched in > buildroot for 22/23 yet which are fixed in the upcoming 24 release, > and 22 has fixes on top of 23 already. > And these patches need rebasing between 22 and 23, so i'd rather keep > moving forward with them than backward. > By introducing 23 as stable sooner in the development cycle rather > than later we can spot issues quicker while also avoiding unnecessary > work in backporting security patches across a broader spectrum. > Regards. I don't have an issue as such with us more aggressively following glibc development if we decide to do so, but this kind of information should be included in the commit message. -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard