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

[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.kamble at intel.com> wrote:
> > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble at intel.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble at 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