From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601AD60DD7 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:54:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s31Csj00000298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 1 Apr 2014 05:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.56.48] (128.224.56.48) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.169.1; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 05:54:45 -0700 Message-ID: <533AB712.2000809@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 08:54:42 -0400 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Khem Raj References: <5339C30B.1060005@windriver.com> <5339C6FD.1070506@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] libc-headers: set TC default to 3.14 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 01 Apr 2014 12:54:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 14-04-01 02:42 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >>> i dont believe you tested all layer combinations >> >> I've tested everything I can, as has the autobuilder. I can't offer >> any more than this. >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> at this point. 3.10 being LTS >>>>> I would assume its a better option to keep at 3.10 >>>> >>>> >>>> I disagree, this is consistent with other releases and the documented >>>> plan of action. I'd rather not have a massive version jump in the fall. >>> >>> its probably not a bad option to stick to LTS version for kernel headers >>> after all >> >> Again, I disagree. >> >> We can maybe keep the 3.10 recipe around, > > Thats ugly too. We decided to stick to one version of headers last time. > >> but the default should >> be 3.14, we need a matched kernel and libc-headers to get the best integration >> and leveraging of the latest features. >> >> If we pull the headers, pull the kernel. > > this all is understood, however we have to get better with timings especially > changing something like kernel headers whose impact is far reaching then > just updating kernel proper. We do the best we can and I can only play the timing that is dealt by the upstream projects ... but we all know that! We arranged for as much soak testing and building as we could behind the scenes. That being said, we are going to introduce the versioned kernel and libc-headers recipes in the -rc1 timeframe next time around and we captured that intention on the kernel planning wiki for 1.7 .. so that should help in the next cycle. Cheers, Bruce >