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

[akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1448 bytes --]



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?

-a rmin
>
> Cheers,
>


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2751 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]