From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:24:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1310138690.20015.878.camel@rex> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A64F9A3E-6359-4C99-B332-378FFE4F644C@gmail.com>
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 17:42 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 14:39 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM, <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com> wrote:
> >>> From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> ...n_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} | 0
> >>> ...tils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} | 0
> >>> ...rosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} | 0
> >>> .../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch | 0
> >>> .../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch | 0
> >>> .../binutils-poison.patch | 0
> >>> .../binutils-pr12366.patch | 0
> >>> .../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch | 0
> >>> ...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 0
> >>> ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch | 0
> >>> ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 0
> >>> .../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch | 0
> >>> .../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch | 0
> >>> .../libiberty_path_fix.patch | 0
> >>> .../libtool-2.4-update.patch | 1725 ++++++++++----------
> >>> .../libtool-rpath-fix.patch | 0
> >>> .../{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} | 7 +-
> >>> 17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-poison.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch (94%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch (100%)
> >>> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)
> >>>
> >>
> >> How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and
> >> call it binutils 2.21 as it is
> >
> > I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM?
>
> Not much yes however
>
> Releases happen not so frequently but bug fixes go into the branch and
> it makes it easier to upgrade may be same as adding patches to
> metadata but we don't need to keep them local in metadata
>
> It will match the process we do for other toolchain components
I have a dislike for depending on what are usually slow SCMs for
components of the system. I've been convinced we need to do it for gcc
but I think that is the exception to the rule and we don't have a
seriously large number of patches queued against binutils...
I've therefore taken the patch.
Cheers,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-08 16:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-07 20:25 [PATCH 0/7] upgrades & misc fixes nitin.a.kamble
2011-07-07 20:25 ` [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1 nitin.a.kamble
2011-07-07 21:39 ` Khem Raj
2011-07-07 23:12 ` Richard Purdie
2011-07-08 0:42 ` Khem Raj
2011-07-08 15:24 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2011-07-08 8:00 ` Phil Blundell
2011-07-07 20:25 ` [PATCH 2/7] gmp: upgrade from 5.0.1 to 5.0.2 nitin.a.kamble
2011-07-07 20:25 ` [PATCH 3/7] distro tracking: update devel.toolchain recipes's fields nitin.a.kamble
2011-07-07 20:25 ` [PATCH 4/7] binutils: package unpackaged files nitin.a.kamble
2011-07-07 21:32 ` Khem Raj
2011-07-08 15:26 ` Richard Purdie
2011-07-08 15:34 ` Phil Blundell
2011-07-08 21:15 ` Kamble, Nitin A
2011-07-08 21:29 ` Phil Blundell
2011-07-08 17:10 ` Kamble, Nitin A
2011-07-07 20:25 ` [PATCH 5/7] eglibc: fix installed but not packaged files nitin.a.kamble
2011-07-07 20:42 ` Phil Blundell
2011-07-07 21:41 ` Khem Raj
2011-07-07 23:11 ` Richard Purdie
2011-07-08 17:04 ` Kamble, Nitin A
2011-07-07 20:25 ` [PATCH 6/7] gcc-runtime: fix installed but unpackaged files nitin.a.kamble
2011-07-07 20:25 ` [PATCH 7/7] elfutils: fix compilations issue with the gcc 4.7 nitin.a.kamble
2011-07-08 15:23 ` [PATCH 0/7] upgrades & misc fixes Richard Purdie
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=1310138690.20015.878.camel@rex \
--to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/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