From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1.windriver.com ([147.11.146.13]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TBJ30-0008Oe-MY for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:30:07 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q8B5HYcT022718 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 22:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bruce-ashfields-macbook.local (128.224.19.124) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.309.2; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 22:17:33 -0700 Message-ID: <504EC96B.7090205@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:17:31 -0400 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: , References: <20120911045038.GE2980@sakrah.homelinux.org> <504EC385.6060008@windriver.com> <20120911045557.GF2980@sakrah.homelinux.org> <504EC4F3.30705@windriver.com> <20120911051602.GA3035@sakrah.homelinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20120911051602.GA3035@sakrah.homelinux.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux-yocto/3.4: v3.4.10 and uprobes/kprobes configuration updates X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:30:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12-09-11 1:16 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On (11/09/12 00:58), Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> On 12-09-11 12:55 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> On (11/09/12 00:52), Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>>> On 12-09-11 12:50 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>>>> On (10/09/12 14:11), Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>>>>> Updating to 3.4.10 which has been soaking for a bit now, as well >>>>>> as picking up the following meta commits from Tom Z: >>>>> >>>>> would it also need bumping linux-libc-headers too ? >>>> >>>> There's no new interfaces in the -stable updates, so there's no reason >>>> to bump. I typically elect to jump to a 3.x.0 and leave it there, but >>>> we had an interim bump that I wouldn't have done .. so we sit at 3.4.3 >>>> at the moment (which is still fine). >>> >>> OK. Next question is, do stable updates get changes such that we need to >>> bump the linux-libc-headers ? >> >> Not that I've ever seen. > > OK thats what I was expecting to hear > so in theory if we always pin linux-libc-headers to major release we are > good. say 3.4.0 and then 3.6.0 and so on we really dont need 3.4.1 or > later and similarly for other versions. In this case we only bump > the linux-libc-headers recipe when we add a new major kernel release Correct. If you check the mailing list archives, I was a bit surprised to see it go to 3.4.3, but going forward, expect to only see major rev bumps. Cheers, Bruce > > Since there are no new features or user exported >> defines that make it into the -stable updates, using the base >> version headers >> is reasonable. It saves churn, and keeps all of the QA and testing >> results directly applicable throughout feature freeze by leaving the >> the stable. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >