Re: [PATCH 1/1] ncurses: Update to 5.9

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 10:35 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing
> >>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress.  We skip over the
> >>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too
> >>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz
> >>>>
> >>>> Wrong link?  That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But
> >>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for?
> >>>>  It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on
> >>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates
> >>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it
> >>
> >> Well, it doesn't currently.  And while I agree we need to do a good job,
> >> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we
> >> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches.
> >>
> > 
> > yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
> 
> That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at
> the moment.  And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket
> of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable
> release.

It sounds like these patches are more like tracking an SCM rather than a
source of specific security patches or critical updates.

I think it might be wise to note this location in the recipe as a
comment (can someone please send an updated patch) but I don't think we
should be including these patches by default, particular if upstream are
making regular releases again.

Cheers,

Richard