On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:17:18PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > Hi > > There are so many versions of toolchain components gcc/binutils/glibc that > we have in metadata. I would like to reduce the number and keep supporting > the ones we really use. Right now we have recipes for > > binutils = 2.14.90.0.6,2.14.90.0.7, 2.15.94.0.1, 2.16, 2.16.1, 2.16.91.0.6, > 2.16.91.0.7, 2.17, 2.17.50.1, 2.17.50.0.5, 2.17.50.0.8, 2.17.50.0.12, 2.18, > 2.18.50.0.7, 2.18.atmel.1.0.1, 2.19, 2.19.1, 2.19.51, 2.19.51.0.3, 2.20, > 2.20.1, cvs > > gcc = 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.6, 4.0.0, 4.0.2, 4.1.0, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, > 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, > 4.4.4, 4.5, csl-arm-2007q3, csl-arm-2008q1, csl-arm-2008q3 > > glibc = 2.2.5, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.5+cvs20050627, 2.5, 2.6.1, 2.9, 2.10.1, > cvs > > uclibc = 0.9.28, 0.9.29, 0.9.30, 0.9.30.1, 0.9.30.2, 0.9.30.3, 0.9.31, git > > > eglibc = 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, svn > > They all use common files. So whenever there is a bugfix needed its a very > hard job to first create a common fix that works across all versions > secondly verify if it works and I am sure 80% of recipe versions mentioned > here dont even build > > So I am going to propose to remove most of them which dont build and > request the distro and machine maintainers to please update the list of > toolchain components to keep. > > Please voice which versions should we really really keep. This should be a > set which is buildable and functional.
For me sane-toolchain versions + newer are enough. More users of same versions will provide better testing and in the end better toolchain for all. Regards, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel