Re: [thud][PATCH] Revert "boost: update to 1.69.0"

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1613 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:45:08AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/24/19 11:01 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +0000, Mikko.Rapeli@bmw.de wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:03:05PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.
> >>>>
> >>>> This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it.
> >> <snip>
> >>> Just my opinion - don't consider this as NAK.
> >>>
> >>> * I already fixed the recipes that failed for me. For at least one the
> >>> change is no more compatible to 1.68.0.
> >>> * This makes PV going backwards
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for addressing - what do others think?
> >> I'm not using thud yet, but updating boost in stable branch would break
> >> too many things and I would have to revert that change in our trees. Some boost
> >> updates are in the end quite trivial and just require recompiling
> >> everything but still, I would prefer that boost is not updated in stable
> >> branches unless there is a huge security/stability issue with the old version.
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I care less for PV going backwards nowadays, it's probably less annoying than
> > bumping PE first in master and then backporting PE bump to thud.
> >
> > People with build issues related to boost upgrade probably never
> > built whole image to push it as an upgrade to end devices.
> 
> So do you agree with the revert?

I do.

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 201 bytes --]