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

2019-04-02 Thread akuster808 


On 4/2/19 12:18 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> Any update on this one? Or should we downgrade it on our side when
> bumping oe-core/thud revision?
I have this stagged but it missed the QA cutoff. 

- armin
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 7:48 PM Martin Jansa  > wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:45:08AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/24/19 11:01 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +, 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
> mailto:akuster...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >  This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.
> > 
> >  This package update slipped in doing the maint process.
> Removing it.
> > >> 
> > >>> 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?
>
> I do.
>
> -- 
> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
> 
>

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

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

2019-04-02 Thread Martin Jansa 
Any update on this one? Or should we downgrade it on our side when bumping
oe-core/thud revision?

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 7:48 PM Martin Jansa  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:45:08AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/24/19 11:01 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +, 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 
> wrote:
> >  This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.
> > 
> >  This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it.
> > >> 
> > >>> 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?
>
> I do.
>
> --
> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
>
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

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

2019-03-24 Thread Martin Jansa 
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:45:08AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/24/19 11:01 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +, 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  wrote:
>  This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.
> 
>  This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it.
> >> 
> >>> 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?

I do.

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

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

2019-03-24 Thread akuster808 


On 3/24/19 11:01 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +, 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  wrote:
 This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.

 This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it.
>> 
>>> 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

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

2019-03-24 Thread Martin Jansa 
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +, 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  wrote:
> > >
> > > This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.
> > >
> > > This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it.
> 
> > 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.

Cheers,
-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

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

2019-03-19 Thread Mikko.Rapeli 
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:03:05PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Armin Kuster  wrote:
> >
> > This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.
> >
> > This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it.

> 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.

Hope this helps,

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

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

2019-03-18 Thread Andreas Müller 
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Armin Kuster  wrote:
>
> This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.
>
> This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster 
> ---
>  ...bjam-native_1.69.0.bb => bjam-native_1.68.0.bb} |   0
>  .../boost/{boost-1.69.0.inc => boost-1.68.0.inc}   |   4 +-
>  meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc   |   1 +
>  ...-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch} |  23 +-
>  ...ucibility-add-file-directive-to-assembler.patch | 243 
> +
>  .../boost/{boost_1.69.0.bb => boost_1.68.0.bb} |   6 +-
>  6 files changed, 263 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>  rename meta/recipes-support/boost/{bjam-native_1.69.0.bb => 
> bjam-native_1.68.0.bb} (100%)
>  rename meta/recipes-support/boost/{boost-1.69.0.inc => boost-1.68.0.inc} 
> (85%)
>  rename 
> meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/{0001-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
>  => 0003-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch} (93%)
>  create mode 100644 
> meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/reproducibility-add-file-directive-to-assembler.patch
>  rename meta/recipes-support/boost/{boost_1.69.0.bb => boost_1.68.0.bb} (56%)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/boost/bjam-native_1.69.0.bb 
> b/meta/recipes-support/boost/bjam-native_1.68.0.bb
> similarity index 100%
> rename from meta/recipes-support/boost/bjam-native_1.69.0.bb
> rename to meta/recipes-support/boost/bjam-native_1.68.0.bb
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.69.0.inc 
> b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.68.0.inc
> similarity index 85%
> rename from meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.69.0.inc
> rename to meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.68.0.inc
> index 923436b..b367a80 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.69.0.inc
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.68.0.inc
> @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ BOOST_MAJ = "${@"_".join(d.getVar("PV").split(".")[0:2])}"
>  BOOST_P = "boost_${BOOST_VER}"
>
>  SRC_URI = 
> "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/project/boost/boost/${PV}/${BOOST_P}.tar.bz2"
> -SRC_URI[md5sum] = "a1332494397bf48332cb152abfefcec2"
> -SRC_URI[sha256sum] = 
> "8f32d4617390d1c2d16f26a27ab60d97807b35440d45891fa340fc2648b04406"
> +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "7fbd1890f571051f2a209681d57d486a"
> +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = 
> "7f6130bc3cf65f56a61ce9d5ea704fa10b462be126ad053e80e553d6d8b7"
>
>  UPSTREAM_CHECK_URI = "http://www.boost.org/users/download/;
>  UPSTREAM_CHECK_REGEX = "boostorg/release/(?P.*)/source/"
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc 
> b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc
> index 9be3717..c4faea2 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ BOOST_LIBS = "\
> random \
> regex \
> serialization \
> +   signals \
> system \
> timer \
> test \
> diff --git 
> a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0001-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
>  
> b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0003-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
> similarity index 93%
> rename from 
> meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0001-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
> rename to 
> meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0003-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
> index 8944cb3..fb6d971 100644
> --- 
> a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0001-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
> +++ 
> b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0003-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
> @@ -1,20 +1,21 @@
> -From 3e4eb02eb5951058bc6f8dffbf049eb189df8291 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> -From: Alexander Kanavin 
> -Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 15:42:57 +0100
> -Subject: [PATCH] Don't set up arch/instruction-set flags, we do that 
> ourselves
> +From 0868761e7d2d75d472090e3ef96f3d2f9ced27f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> +From: Christopher Larson 
> +Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:29:32 -0700
> +Subject: [PATCH 5/6] Don't set up arch/instruction-set flags, we do that
> + ourselves
>
>  Upstream-Status: Inappropriate
>  Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson 
> -Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin 
> +
>  ---
> - tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam | 128 --
> - 1 file changed, 128 deletions(-)
> + tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam | 127 
> --
> + 1 file changed, 127 deletions(-)
>
>  diff --git a/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam b/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam
> -index c57c773f..28618fb1 100644
> +index e3b1b952..e4fc6c32 100644
>  --- a/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam
>  +++ b/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam
> -@@ -1152,131 +1152,3 @@ local rule cpu-flags ( toolset variable : 
> architecture : instruction-set + :
> +@@ -1276,130 +1276,3 @@ local rule cpu-flags ( toolset variable : 
> architecture : instruction-set + :
>   $(architecture)/$(instruction-set)
>   : $(values) ;
>   }
> @@ -64,7

[OE-core] [thud][PATCH] Revert "boost: update to 1.69.0"

2019-03-18 Thread Armin Kuster 
This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.

This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it.

Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster 
---
 ...bjam-native_1.69.0.bb => bjam-native_1.68.0.bb} |   0
 .../boost/{boost-1.69.0.inc => boost-1.68.0.inc}   |   4 +-
 meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc   |   1 +
 ...-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch} |  23 +-
 ...ucibility-add-file-directive-to-assembler.patch | 243 +
 .../boost/{boost_1.69.0.bb => boost_1.68.0.bb} |   6 +-
 6 files changed, 263 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-support/boost/{bjam-native_1.69.0.bb => 
bjam-native_1.68.0.bb} (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-support/boost/{boost-1.69.0.inc => boost-1.68.0.inc} (85%)
 rename 
meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/{0001-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
 => 0003-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch} (93%)
 create mode 100644 
meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/reproducibility-add-file-directive-to-assembler.patch
 rename meta/recipes-support/boost/{boost_1.69.0.bb => boost_1.68.0.bb} (56%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/boost/bjam-native_1.69.0.bb 
b/meta/recipes-support/boost/bjam-native_1.68.0.bb
similarity index 100%
rename from meta/recipes-support/boost/bjam-native_1.69.0.bb
rename to meta/recipes-support/boost/bjam-native_1.68.0.bb
diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.69.0.inc 
b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.68.0.inc
similarity index 85%
rename from meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.69.0.inc
rename to meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.68.0.inc
index 923436b..b367a80 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.69.0.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost-1.68.0.inc
@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ BOOST_MAJ = "${@"_".join(d.getVar("PV").split(".")[0:2])}"
 BOOST_P = "boost_${BOOST_VER}"
 
 SRC_URI = "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/project/boost/boost/${PV}/${BOOST_P}.tar.bz2"
-SRC_URI[md5sum] = "a1332494397bf48332cb152abfefcec2"
-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = 
"8f32d4617390d1c2d16f26a27ab60d97807b35440d45891fa340fc2648b04406"
+SRC_URI[md5sum] = "7fbd1890f571051f2a209681d57d486a"
+SRC_URI[sha256sum] = 
"7f6130bc3cf65f56a61ce9d5ea704fa10b462be126ad053e80e553d6d8b7"
 
 UPSTREAM_CHECK_URI = "http://www.boost.org/users/download/;
 UPSTREAM_CHECK_REGEX = "boostorg/release/(?P.*)/source/"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc 
b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc
index 9be3717..c4faea2 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost.inc
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ BOOST_LIBS = "\
random \
regex \
serialization \
+   signals \
system \
timer \
test \
diff --git 
a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0001-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
 
b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0003-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
similarity index 93%
rename from 
meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0001-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
rename to 
meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0003-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
index 8944cb3..fb6d971 100644
--- 
a/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0001-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
+++ 
b/meta/recipes-support/boost/boost/0003-Don-t-set-up-arch-instruction-set-flags-we-do-that-o.patch
@@ -1,20 +1,21 @@
-From 3e4eb02eb5951058bc6f8dffbf049eb189df8291 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Alexander Kanavin 
-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 15:42:57 +0100
-Subject: [PATCH] Don't set up arch/instruction-set flags, we do that ourselves
+From 0868761e7d2d75d472090e3ef96f3d2f9ced27f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Christopher Larson 
+Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:29:32 -0700
+Subject: [PATCH 5/6] Don't set up arch/instruction-set flags, we do that
+ ourselves
 
 Upstream-Status: Inappropriate
 Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson 
-Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin 
+
 ---
- tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam | 128 --
- 1 file changed, 128 deletions(-)
+ tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam | 127 --
+ 1 file changed, 127 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam b/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam
-index c57c773f..28618fb1 100644
+index e3b1b952..e4fc6c32 100644
 --- a/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam
 +++ b/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam
-@@ -1152,131 +1152,3 @@ local rule cpu-flags ( toolset variable : architecture 
: instruction-set + :
+@@ -1276,130 +1276,3 @@ local rule cpu-flags ( toolset variable : architecture 
: instruction-set + :
  $(architecture)/$(instruction-set)
  : $(values) ;
  }
@@ -64,7 +65,6 @@ index c57c773f..28618fb1 100644
 -cpu-flags gcc OPTIONS : x86 : skylake : -march=skylake ;
 -cpu-flags gcc OPTIONS : x86 : skylake-avx512 : -march=skylake-avx512 ;
 -cpu-flags gcc OPTIONS : x86 : cannonlake : -march=skylake-avx512 -mavx512vbmi 
-mavx512ifma -msha ;