From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:01:10 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2017-04-27 In-Reply-To: <20170428110851.03eff198@free-electrons.com> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:08:51 +0200") References: <20170428062842.1E44E20E06@mail.free-electrons.com> <20170428084433.7pb5lamlgxy2hzau@tarshish> <20170428110851.03eff198@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <87shksj1g9.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 >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > Hello, > On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:44:33 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: >> Incompatibility of ola with protobuf 3.2.0. An upstream issue[1] is open since >> January. >> >> Should we revert the protobuf bump? Remove ola? > Remove ola is I believe the right approach. According to the Github > issue, Fedora has done the same thing. > I believe it's more important to stay up-to-date with protobuf than it > is to keep ola as a package, especially since ola is not used as a > dependency for any other package. > Maybe just mark it BROKEN for now? Yes, I think that is the best way forward as well. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard