From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7XWI-0001LR-Q6 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:31:58 +0200 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Q7XUF-0004oR-Ej from Tom_Rini@mentor.com ; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:29:51 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:27:42 -0700 Received: from [172.30.80.151] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:29:50 -0700 Message-ID: <4D9CB116.4010401@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:29:42 -0700 From: Tom Rini Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Khem Raj References: <95d636004deffc0d6473c67ee9b5ce62937dc085.1302050252.git.tom_rini@mentor.com> <4D9C78F5.1090808@mentor.com> <4D9C9E75.1060203@mentor.com> <4D9CA452.1020205@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2011 18:27:42.0255 (UTC) FILETIME=[510A4BF0:01CBF488] Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ncurses: Update to 5.9 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:31:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/06/2011 11:27 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini 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. > > 5.9 was released few days back so that patch might be lean for now > but I assume overtime it will get fatter It's invalid at the moment, yes. But you haven't explained why ncurses needs to be in the bleeding edge bucket. Usually this is for stuff that hasn't really reached a stability point. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation