On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Paul Barker <p...@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote:
> On 26 July 2013 11:57, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: > > Actually, I also have problems with Debian stable? See the bugreports I > > sent. It is mentioned as "supported distribution". Yet, it does not > work. I > > do not to follow the parallelism with Arch accordingly. > > The cost of supporting a distro will be dependent on the rate and > magnitude of changes within that distro. Arch has large, frequent > updates to core packages and so would have to be re-tested almost > continuously. "Stable" releases of many distros limit how and when > they will update things like gcc, binutils, etc and try not to > introduce backwards-incompatible changes. Such things still slip > through, but they are rare, so OE/Yocto can cope with the developer > time needed to get the problem fixed. Supporting a rolling-release > distro which follows the latest toolchain updates would essentially be > an open-ended commitment. > I already explained that you are having a bit of double standard in here. Updating is not a necessary evil. It is actually the nice way at times when you get bugfixes, and do not wait for a simple one-liner fix for ages. Let us not argue over personal styles. I hope, decisions are not based on personal styles in here. > > People can always revert the offending arch package to one week older if > > they wanna use Yocto, or they can fix it. I do not see it a problem, and > > easily solvable, especially with a clear CI documentation which should > > happen for any node, anyhow. > > So we'd have to say "Arch Linux, with xxx version of gcc, yyy version > of binutils, etc" was supported, not just "Arch Linux". How many > packages do we specify the version of? > Obviously, the necessary few packages that are listed on the dependency page. > > The problem is currently that there is no any focus on Arch > > This is incorrect. Just because there Arch isn't "supported" doesn't > mean no-one cares about it. When the sanity check for a broken make > 3.82 was added to OE, I put in a bug report to Arch > (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/35968) and it got fixed. > No no, I was referring to the Yocto project, not Archlinux, and even then: clear focus is not equal to occasional low-hanging fruit fixes. Laszlo
_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto