Re: [oe] [RFC] Toolchain recipes, versions, removal and consolidation
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 For flexibility in out of tree projects, I'd like to see us keep at least for binutils 2.18 and newer (official releases) and one each of the H.J. Lu releases (.5x.y.z) for folks that need that. Similarly for gcc, 4.2.4, 4.3.4, 4.4.4 and one of the csl's. For glibc, 2.9 and newer? For uclibc maybe we can drop 0.9.30.[12] if they aren't pinned. But I fear this won't help your concern as much since often fixing up for say gcc 4.2.4 fixes it up for 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, and so forth. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [RFC] Toolchain recipes, versions, removal and consolidation
On (01/11/10 12:36), Tom Rini wrote: 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 For flexibility in out of tree projects, I'd like to see us keep at least for binutils 2.18 and newer (official releases) and one each of the H.J. Lu releases (.5x.y.z) for folks that need that. Similarly for gcc, 4.2.4, 4.3.4, 4.4.4 and one of the csl's. For glibc, 2.9 and newer? For uclibc maybe we can drop 0.9.30.[12] if they aren't pinned. But I fear this won't help your concern as much since often fixing up for say gcc 4.2.4 fixes it up for 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, and so forth. Well my intention is to keep the versions that we can build and maintain. I plan to rework the .inc file mess once we have limited the versions to support -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation ___ 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
Re: [oe] [RFC] Toolchain recipes, versions, removal and consolidation
В сообщении от Пятница 29 октября 2010 23:17:18 автор Khem Raj написал: 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 On 2.20.1 here, probably leaving 2.18+ should be fine, although quick grep at conf/ shows almost all versions pinned in some way. 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 Using 4.4.4, so technically not care about anything other than 4.4.x and 4.5.x. But I think it's definitely time to kill 3.x. I'd opt for leaving 4.2+ and one patchlevel version per minor. Is there any real point in having 4 4.2.x or 4.3.x versions? 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 Not using that, but I'd say that killing it completely maybe is a bit too much. 2.9+ or just one latest? 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 Using git. Leaving just 0.9.31 and git looks good to me. eglibc = 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, svn Not using that, no opinion. -- http://roman.khimov.ru mailto: ro...@khimov.ru gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 0xE5E055C3 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [RFC] Toolchain recipes, versions, removal and consolidation
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
Re: [oe] [RFC] Toolchain recipes, versions, removal and consolidation
2010/10/30 Martin Jansa martin.ja...@gmail.com: 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 Seems a good plan to me to prune some. Wrt the list: A nios2 backend *only* exists for gcc 4.1.2. It also needs binutils_2.17.50.0.12.bb (there is also binutils 2.20.1, but that one is not fully working yet (and has DP = -1) For glibc and nios2 I see glibc/glibc_2.10.1.bb glibc/glibc_2.5.bb Not 100% which one is being used. Will peek at it next week. Frans ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
