On 3/24/19 11:01 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +0000, mikko.rap...@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 <akuster...@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, >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
