Re: [PATCH 2/4 V2] systemd: Upgrade 219 -> 224

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

On 08/19/2015 10:21 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 August 2015 at 16:41, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are many reasons, for me its overlay support for systemd-nspawn,
>>> networkd has got many new features that is now usable w.r.t. IP forwarding,
>>> vxlan etc.
>>> and it has many bug fixed in those 2000 odd commits since 219, no
>>> different then any other package upgrades we do in general it keep the
>>> upgrade workload lower as we roll the releases.
>>> Any specific concerns ?
>>
>>
>> Can we get an updated patch with a clearer commit log?

I've also heard that as systemd evolves, more binaries are getting added
to the base package that should be packaged separately for people
interested in small images. I do not have personal experience here, but
wanted to pass along the feedback.

We should look at buildhistory packaging differences when we do upgrades.

Philip

> 
> sent a v2 with more descriptions
>>
>> My concerns with the systemd upgrade were simply that until now we were
>> tracking the systemd-stable repository.
> 
> it was only in last release that it was switched to use stable
> repository in hope that it will help
> backporting to 1.8 release any future updates done on 219 easily. We
> never were pinned to stable release
> it just was a coincidence that 219 was right in time for 1.8 release.
> We want to avoid situations where core recipes
> from oe-core are overridden in other layers and staying latest helps that.
> 
>   If we want to change that policy to
>> the latest release, that's fine by me.
>>
>> Anyone else have an opinion here?
>>
>> Ross