Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1

2011-07-08 Thread Phil Blundell 
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 00:12 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
 On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 14:39 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
  How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and
  call it binutils 2.21 as it is
 
 I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM?

Agreed, seems like fetching it from CVS will just make it slower and not
really buy us anything.  I think sticking with the tarballs is the right
answer here.

p.





___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1

2011-07-07 Thread Khem Raj 
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM,  nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
 From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com

 Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
 ---
  ...n_2.21.bb = binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} |    0
  ...tils-cross_2.21.bb = binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} |    0
  ...rosssdk_2.21.bb = binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} |    0
  .../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch                        |    0
  .../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch               |    0
  .../binutils-poison.patch                          |    0
  .../binutils-pr12366.patch                         |    0
  .../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch          |    0
  ...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch |    0
  ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch |    0
  ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch |    0
  .../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch           |    0
  .../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch              |    0
  .../libiberty_path_fix.patch                       |    0
  .../libtool-2.4-update.patch                       | 1725 
 ++--
  .../libtool-rpath-fix.patch                        |    0
  .../{binutils_2.21.bb = binutils_2.21.1.bb}       |    7 +-
  17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb = 
 binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb = 
 binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb = 
 binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-poison.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch (94%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch (100%)
  rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb = 
 binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)


How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and
call it binutils 2.21 as it is

___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1

2011-07-07 Thread Richard Purdie 
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 14:39 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM,  nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
  From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
 
  Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
  ---
   ...n_2.21.bb = binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} |0
   ...tils-cross_2.21.bb = binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} |0
   ...rosssdk_2.21.bb = binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} |0
   .../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch|0
   .../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch   |0
   .../binutils-poison.patch  |0
   .../binutils-pr12366.patch |0
   .../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch  |0
   ...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch |0
   ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch |0
   ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch |0
   .../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch   |0
   .../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch  |0
   .../libiberty_path_fix.patch   |0
   .../libtool-2.4-update.patch   | 1725 
  ++--
   .../libtool-rpath-fix.patch|0
   .../{binutils_2.21.bb = binutils_2.21.1.bb}   |7 +-
   17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb = 
  binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb = 
  binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb = 
  binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-poison.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch (94%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
  binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch (100%)
   rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb = 
  binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)
 
 
 How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and
 call it binutils 2.21 as it is

I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM?

Cheers,

Richard


___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/7] binutils: upgrade from 2.21 to 2.21.1

2011-07-07 Thread Khem Raj 


On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org 
wrote:

 On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 14:39 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM,  nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
 From: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
 
 Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble nitin.a.kam...@intel.com
 ---
 ...n_2.21.bb = binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} |0
 ...tils-cross_2.21.bb = binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} |0
 ...rosssdk_2.21.bb = binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} |0
 .../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch|0
 .../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch   |0
 .../binutils-poison.patch  |0
 .../binutils-pr12366.patch |0
 .../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch  |0
 ...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch |0
 ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch |0
 ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch |0
 .../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch   |0
 .../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch  |0
 .../libiberty_path_fix.patch   |0
 .../libtool-2.4-update.patch   | 1725 
 ++--
 .../libtool-rpath-fix.patch|0
 .../{binutils_2.21.bb = binutils_2.21.1.bb}   |7 +-
 17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb = 
 binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb = 
 binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb = 
 binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-poison.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch (94%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 = 
 binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb = 
 binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%)
 
 
 How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and
 call it binutils 2.21 as it is
 
 I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM?

Not much yes however

Releases happen not so frequently but bug fixes go into the branch and it makes 
it easier to upgrade may be same as adding patches to metadata but we don't 
need to keep them local in metadata

It will match the process we do for other toolchain components



 
 Cheers,
 
 Richard
 
 
 ___
 Openembedded-core mailing list
 Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
 http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core