From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:57:41 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot maintainer and stable releases In-Reply-To: <1231330238.32308.334.camel@elrond.atmel.com> (Ulf Samuelsson's message of "Wed\, 07 Jan 2009 13\:10\:38 +0100") References: <87prj1v4dy.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <1231243376.32308.52.camel@elrond.atmel.com> <87vdsssiwo.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <200901070409.42558.markus.heidelberg@web.de> <1231326832.32308.320.camel@elrond.atmel.com> <87prizl5im.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <1231330238.32308.334.camel@elrond.atmel.com> Message-ID: <87d4ezl1dm.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Ulf" == Ulf Samuelsson writes: Hi, Ulf> but I had to disable SAMBA and STRACE and change to uCLibc-0.9.30 Ulf> since 0.9.29 does not compile for anything I tried. >> >> Ok, why would you use 0.9.29 now 0.9.30 is out? Anyway, I'll do a >> 0.9.29 test compile in a moment. Builds ok here on armv4l with gcc 4.24 / 2.6.28 headers (breaks with 4.3.x with the limits.h error). I'm not interested in fixing up 0.9.29 to work with current compilers, but feel free to do so. Ulf> I giess a new version of STRACE has probably been introduced Ulf> and this broke the socat.XXX.patch.avr32 patches. >> >> socat or strace? Ulf> sorry - strace. Ok, HcE will afaik check in the updated avr32 patch once he gets the connection sorted out. Ulf> It is not fixed by a system which has stable distributions Ulf> which are removed and replaced with another stable Ulf> distribution which breaks support for a number of systems. Ulf> Then distributions might be stable, but the system as a whole Ulf> is totally unstable, and unacceptable for professional use. Breaks support? That shouldn't happen if the release candidates gets enough testing. 100% safety is not realistic, if you want that, just don't upgrade to the new version. >> With main svn you mean this tree? Maybe it would make more sense to >> keep the Atmel stuff in your own fork? Ulf> That is not my own fork, it is Atmel Norways fork. Yes, but Ulf == Atmel.no, right? >> I disagree. This is exactly what we SHOULDN'T do. We need to keep >> close to upstream and only provide the latest stable version (except >> for special situations) and work with upstream to fix problems if any. Ulf> Which will break architectures continously, so it will not allow Ulf> the use of Buildroot as more than a toy to introduce Linux Ulf> until people find something that really works. Why? Seems to work pretty well elsewhere. >> Anything else is just too much work with too little improvements >> going upstream. Ulf> I do not disagree that we need to ensure that patches are fed Ulf> upstream, but the current way does not support working as a team Ulf> project. It is a single user system. This I don't get - What do you mean? Ulf> Since we have opposing views, then I think the rest of the Ulf> people interested in maintaining buildroot, needs to Ulf> also show their desires before any drastic actions in either Ulf> direction is taken. Sure, feel free to speak up. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard