* [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
@ 2011-01-24 2:03 Khem Raj
2011-01-24 9:02 ` Koen Kooi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Khem Raj @ 2011-01-24 2:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
* no need to pin older udev with uclibc/git either
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
---
conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf | 6 +++---
.../include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc | 1 -
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
index c6fb07d..3ac3847 100644
--- a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
+++ b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
@@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers-native = "${LINUX_LIBC_HEADERS_VERSION}"
#Prefer glibc 2.6 and uclibc 0.9.30, these have had the most testing.
PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc ?= "2.10.1"
PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial ?= "2.10.1"
-PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "0.9.30.2"
-PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "0.9.30.2"
+PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "git"
+PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "git"
PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc ?= "2.12"
PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-initial ?= "2.12"
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION_avr32 ?= "4.2.2"
#Everybody else can just use this:
ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION ?= "4.5"
-ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.20.1"
+ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.21"
PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
diff --git a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
index 5532f29..66ee5ab 100644
--- a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
+++ b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
@@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_samba = "3.3.9"
PREFERRED_VERSION_tiff = "3.9.4+4.0.0beta6"
PREFERRED_VERSION_udev = "165"
-PREFERRED_VERSION_udev_libc-uclibc = "141"
UDEV_GE_141 = "1"
PREFERRED_VERSION_usbutils = "0.86"
--
1.7.0.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 2:03 [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git Khem Raj
@ 2011-01-24 9:02 ` Koen Kooi
2011-01-24 9:15 ` Khem Raj
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2011-01-24 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 24-01-11 03:03, Khem Raj wrote:
> * no need to pin older udev with uclibc/git either
>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
NAK! binutils 2.21 introduces way too many problem at this moment, those
need to get solved before switching to it.
> ---
> conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf | 6 +++---
> .../include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
> index c6fb07d..3ac3847 100644
> --- a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
> +++ b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
> @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers-native = "${LINUX_LIBC_HEADERS_VERSION}"
> #Prefer glibc 2.6 and uclibc 0.9.30, these have had the most testing.
> PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc ?= "2.10.1"
> PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial ?= "2.10.1"
> -PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "0.9.30.2"
> -PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "0.9.30.2"
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "git"
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "git"
> PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc ?= "2.12"
> PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-initial ?= "2.12"
>
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION_avr32 ?= "4.2.2"
> #Everybody else can just use this:
> ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION ?= "4.5"
>
> -ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.20.1"
> +ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.21"
>
> PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
> PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
> diff --git a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
> index 5532f29..66ee5ab 100644
> --- a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
> +++ b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
> @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_samba = "3.3.9"
> PREFERRED_VERSION_tiff = "3.9.4+4.0.0beta6"
>
> PREFERRED_VERSION_udev = "165"
> -PREFERRED_VERSION_udev_libc-uclibc = "141"
> UDEV_GE_141 = "1"
>
> PREFERRED_VERSION_usbutils = "0.86"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFNPUAeMkyGM64RGpERAm6CAJsHFPAQdphhKT4liYnMNE57ubU32wCfeJim
6pPp+1le2CwVszFtrNlJ+Qk=
=ihdt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 9:02 ` Koen Kooi
@ 2011-01-24 9:15 ` Khem Raj
2011-01-24 9:39 ` Koen Kooi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Khem Raj @ 2011-01-24 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 24-01-11 03:03, Khem Raj wrote:
>> * no need to pin older udev with uclibc/git either
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
>
> NAK! binutils 2.21 introduces way too many problem at this moment, those
> need to get solved before switching to it.
hmmm. Too vague a statement. Do you have list of issues somewhere I can look at
it built the console-image x11-image images I tried and booted
console-image too.
>
>> ---
>> conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf | 6 +++---
>> .../include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc | 1 -
>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>> index c6fb07d..3ac3847 100644
>> --- a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>> +++ b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>> @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers-native = "${LINUX_LIBC_HEADERS_VERSION}"
>> #Prefer glibc 2.6 and uclibc 0.9.30, these have had the most testing.
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc ?= "2.10.1"
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial ?= "2.10.1"
>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "0.9.30.2"
>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "0.9.30.2"
>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "git"
>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "git"
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc ?= "2.12"
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-initial ?= "2.12"
>>
>> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION_avr32 ?= "4.2.2"
>> #Everybody else can just use this:
>> ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION ?= "4.5"
>>
>> -ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.20.1"
>> +ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.21"
>>
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
>> diff --git a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>> index 5532f29..66ee5ab 100644
>> --- a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>> +++ b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>> @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_samba = "3.3.9"
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_tiff = "3.9.4+4.0.0beta6"
>>
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_udev = "165"
>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_udev_libc-uclibc = "141"
>> UDEV_GE_141 = "1"
>>
>> PREFERRED_VERSION_usbutils = "0.86"
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFNPUAeMkyGM64RGpERAm6CAJsHFPAQdphhKT4liYnMNE57ubU32wCfeJim
> 6pPp+1le2CwVszFtrNlJ+Qk=
> =ihdt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 9:15 ` Khem Raj
@ 2011-01-24 9:39 ` Koen Kooi
2011-01-24 9:59 ` Frans Meulenbroeks
2011-01-24 15:38 ` Khem Raj
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2011-01-24 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 24-01-11 10:15, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> On 24-01-11 03:03, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> * no need to pin older udev with uclibc/git either
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
>
> NAK! binutils 2.21 introduces way too many problem at this moment, those
> need to get solved before switching to it.
>
>> hmmm. Too vague a statement. Do you have list of issues somewhere I can look at
>> it built the console-image x11-image images I tried and booted
>> console-image too.
Try building anything that uses linux-omap-psp 2.6.32. You will run into
the secure mode problem. That one is relatively easy to solve, but it
needs to get solved *before* the switch, not after.
But besided that, so a change needs to get RFC'd, tested and signed off
by the angstrom maintainers before it gets pushed. It's a toolchain
change and we take toolchains seriously.
Waking up and seeing it applied without all that is *extremely*
insulting. So I reverted it.
>
>
>>>> ---
>>>> conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf | 6 +++---
>>>> .../include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc | 1 -
>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>>>> index c6fb07d..3ac3847 100644
>>>> --- a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>>>> +++ b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>>>> @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers-native = "${LINUX_LIBC_HEADERS_VERSION}"
>>>> #Prefer glibc 2.6 and uclibc 0.9.30, these have had the most testing.
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc ?= "2.10.1"
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial ?= "2.10.1"
>>>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "0.9.30.2"
>>>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "0.9.30.2"
>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "git"
>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "git"
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc ?= "2.12"
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-initial ?= "2.12"
>>>>
>>>> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION_avr32 ?= "4.2.2"
>>>> #Everybody else can just use this:
>>>> ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION ?= "4.5"
>>>>
>>>> -ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.20.1"
>>>> +ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.21"
>>>>
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
>>>> diff --git a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>>>> index 5532f29..66ee5ab 100644
>>>> --- a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>>>> +++ b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>>>> @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_samba = "3.3.9"
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_tiff = "3.9.4+4.0.0beta6"
>>>>
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_udev = "165"
>>>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_udev_libc-uclibc = "141"
>>>> UDEV_GE_141 = "1"
>>>>
>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_usbutils = "0.86"
>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFNPUjjMkyGM64RGpERAhlFAJ0WQYEHLjLVp4uJAQ6N75/EYnCYegCfZdMK
WxfAO9VF9GtRwgDa5cvFipA=
=hJkJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 9:39 ` Koen Kooi
@ 2011-01-24 9:59 ` Frans Meulenbroeks
2011-01-24 14:52 ` Tom Rini
2011-01-24 15:15 ` Philip Balister
2011-01-24 15:38 ` Khem Raj
1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2011-01-24 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
2011/1/24 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 24-01-11 10:15, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>> On 24-01-11 03:03, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> * no need to pin older udev with uclibc/git either
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
>>
>> NAK! binutils 2.21 introduces way too many problem at this moment, those
>> need to get solved before switching to it.
>>
>>> hmmm. Too vague a statement. Do you have list of issues somewhere I can look at
>>> it built the console-image x11-image images I tried and booted
>>> console-image too.
>
> Try building anything that uses linux-omap-psp 2.6.32. You will run into
> the secure mode problem. That one is relatively easy to solve, but it
> needs to get solved *before* the switch, not after.
>
> But besided that, so a change needs to get RFC'd, tested and signed off
> by the angstrom maintainers before it gets pushed. It's a toolchain
> change and we take toolchains seriously.
>
> Waking up and seeing it applied without all that is *extremely*
> insulting. So I reverted it.
>
Pushing distro changes without review is against the policy:
From http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy:
* Distro config changes should be reviewed by the distro maintainers
where known
Reveting changes from others is also against the policy:
http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Revert_Policy
(and imho equally bad (or insulting if you prefer))
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
My two eurocents. Frans.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 9:59 ` Frans Meulenbroeks
@ 2011-01-24 14:52 ` Tom Rini
2011-01-24 15:15 ` Philip Balister
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2011-01-24 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On 01/24/2011 02:59 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/1/24 Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 24-01-11 10:15, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>>> On 24-01-11 03:03, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>> * no need to pin older udev with uclibc/git either
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj<raj.khem@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> NAK! binutils 2.21 introduces way too many problem at this moment, those
>>> need to get solved before switching to it.
>>>
>>>> hmmm. Too vague a statement. Do you have list of issues somewhere I can look at
>>>> it built the console-image x11-image images I tried and booted
>>>> console-image too.
>>
>> Try building anything that uses linux-omap-psp 2.6.32. You will run into
>> the secure mode problem. That one is relatively easy to solve, but it
>> needs to get solved *before* the switch, not after.
>>
>> But besided that, so a change needs to get RFC'd, tested and signed off
>> by the angstrom maintainers before it gets pushed. It's a toolchain
>> change and we take toolchains seriously.
>>
>> Waking up and seeing it applied without all that is *extremely*
>> insulting. So I reverted it.
>>
>
> Pushing distro changes without review is against the policy:
>
>> From http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy:
>
> * Distro config changes should be reviewed by the distro maintainers
> where known
>
> Reveting changes from others is also against the policy:
>
> http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Revert_Policy
>
> (and imho equally bad (or insulting if you prefer))
>
>
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Well, no. I'm pretty sure the "you just broke my distribution" falls
into the yes, it's OK to push the revert before the other party wakes up
and says "Oops, sorry!".
--
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 9:59 ` Frans Meulenbroeks
2011-01-24 14:52 ` Tom Rini
@ 2011-01-24 15:15 ` Philip Balister
2011-01-24 15:28 ` Tom Rini
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Philip Balister @ 2011-01-24 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On 01/24/2011 01:59 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/1/24 Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
> Pushing distro changes without review is against the policy:
>
>> From http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy:
>
> * Distro config changes should be reviewed by the distro maintainers
> where known
>
> Reveting changes from others is also against the policy:
>
> http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Revert_Policy
>
> (and imho equally bad (or insulting if you prefer))
>
>
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
>
> My two eurocents. Frans.
Frans, as noted this change intoduces serious issues with some Angstrom
targets. The Angstrom devs know what is best for Angstrom. I'm not sure
what Khem was thinking by pushing this change without consulting with
Angstrom devs.
Philip
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 15:15 ` Philip Balister
@ 2011-01-24 15:28 ` Tom Rini
2011-01-24 15:42 ` Khem Raj
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2011-01-24 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On 01/24/2011 08:15 AM, Philip Balister wrote:
> On 01/24/2011 01:59 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> 2011/1/24 Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>> Pushing distro changes without review is against the policy:
>>
>>> From http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy:
>>
>> * Distro config changes should be reviewed by the distro maintainers
>> where known
>>
>> Reveting changes from others is also against the policy:
>>
>> http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Revert_Policy
>>
>> (and imho equally bad (or insulting if you prefer))
>>
>>
>> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
>>
>> My two eurocents. Frans.
>
> Frans, as noted this change intoduces serious issues with some Angstrom
> targets. The Angstrom devs know what is best for Angstrom. I'm not sure
> what Khem was thinking by pushing this change without consulting with
> Angstrom devs.
Not to put too many words into Khem's mouth, but I imagine it was that
he checked this in on the same branch as the other changes he pushed
last night and forgot (time for some 'git stash'ing Khem :))
--
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 9:39 ` Koen Kooi
2011-01-24 9:59 ` Frans Meulenbroeks
@ 2011-01-24 15:38 ` Khem Raj
2011-01-24 16:08 ` Andreas Oberritter
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Khem Raj @ 2011-01-24 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 24-01-11 10:15, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>> On 24-01-11 03:03, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> * no need to pin older udev with uclibc/git either
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
>>
>> NAK! binutils 2.21 introduces way too many problem at this moment, those
>> need to get solved before switching to it.
>>
>>> hmmm. Too vague a statement. Do you have list of issues somewhere I can look at
>>> it built the console-image x11-image images I tried and booted
>>> console-image too.
>
> Try building anything that uses linux-omap-psp 2.6.32. You will run into
> the secure mode problem. That one is relatively easy to solve, but it
> needs to get solved *before* the switch, not after.
>
> But besided that, so a change needs to get RFC'd, tested and signed off
> by the angstrom maintainers before it gets pushed. It's a toolchain
> change and we take toolchains seriously.
>
> Waking up and seeing it applied without all that is *extremely*
> insulting. So I reverted it.
Koen
bah it was not intentionally pushed. I wanted to push the other gcc
change and git push
pushed all branches. I should probably not track remote branches that
way git push wont
do this kind of mess. Sorry for the hassle. Thank you for reverting it
>
>>
>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf | 6 +++---
>>>>> .../include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc | 1 -
>>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>>>>> index c6fb07d..3ac3847 100644
>>>>> --- a/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>>>>> +++ b/conf/distro/angstrom-2010.x.conf
>>>>> @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers-native = "${LINUX_LIBC_HEADERS_VERSION}"
>>>>> #Prefer glibc 2.6 and uclibc 0.9.30, these have had the most testing.
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc ?= "2.10.1"
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial ?= "2.10.1"
>>>>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "0.9.30.2"
>>>>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "0.9.30.2"
>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc ?= "git"
>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc-initial ?= "git"
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc ?= "2.12"
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-initial ?= "2.12"
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION_avr32 ?= "4.2.2"
>>>>> #Everybody else can just use this:
>>>>> ANGSTROM_GCC_VERSION ?= "4.5"
>>>>>
>>>>> -ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.20.1"
>>>>> +ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION ?= "2.21"
>>>>>
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross ?= "${ANGSTROM_BINUTILS_VERSION}"
>>>>> diff --git a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>>>>> index 5532f29..66ee5ab 100644
>>>>> --- a/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>>>>> +++ b/conf/distro/include/angstrom-2010-preferred-versions.inc
>>>>> @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_samba = "3.3.9"
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_tiff = "3.9.4+4.0.0beta6"
>>>>>
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_udev = "165"
>>>>> -PREFERRED_VERSION_udev_libc-uclibc = "141"
>>>>> UDEV_GE_141 = "1"
>>>>>
>>>>> PREFERRED_VERSION_usbutils = "0.86"
>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFNPUjjMkyGM64RGpERAhlFAJ0WQYEHLjLVp4uJAQ6N75/EYnCYegCfZdMK
> WxfAO9VF9GtRwgDa5cvFipA=
> =hJkJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 15:28 ` Tom Rini
@ 2011-01-24 15:42 ` Khem Raj
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Khem Raj @ 2011-01-24 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>
> Not to put too many words into Khem's mouth, but I imagine it was that he
> checked this in on the same branch as the other changes he pushed last night
> and forgot (time for some 'git stash'ing Khem :))
>
>
yeah in order to send the review thru git format-patch/git send-email
you need to commit it somewhere
and this has bitten me more than once plus it was too late in the
night so I will forgive myself but look
for some pre-push hooks to show me what its pushing before it finally
does so. If anyone knows
of such a hook please lemme know
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git
2011-01-24 15:38 ` Khem Raj
@ 2011-01-24 16:08 ` Andreas Oberritter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Oberritter @ 2011-01-24 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
Hello Khem,
On 01/24/2011 04:38 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> bah it was not intentionally pushed. I wanted to push the other gcc
>> change and git push
>> pushed all branches. I should probably not track remote branches that
>> way git push wont
>> do this kind of mess. Sorry for the hassle. Thank you for reverting it
you can set "git config push.default current" to push only the current
branch.
Regards,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-24 16:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-01-24 2:03 [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git Khem Raj
2011-01-24 9:02 ` Koen Kooi
2011-01-24 9:15 ` Khem Raj
2011-01-24 9:39 ` Koen Kooi
2011-01-24 9:59 ` Frans Meulenbroeks
2011-01-24 14:52 ` Tom Rini
2011-01-24 15:15 ` Philip Balister
2011-01-24 15:28 ` Tom Rini
2011-01-24 15:42 ` Khem Raj
2011-01-24 15:38 ` Khem Raj
2011-01-24 16:08 ` Andreas Oberritter
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.