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

[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 <martin.jansa at gmail.com
> <mailto:martin.jansa at gmail.com>> 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 +0000, Mikko.Rapeli at bmw.de
>     <mailto:Mikko.Rapeli at 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
>     <akuster808 at gmail.com <mailto:akuster808 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > >>>> This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> This package update slipped in doing the maint process.
>     Removing it.
>     > >> <snip>
>     > >>> 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.Jansa at gmail.com
>     <mailto:Martin.Jansa at gmail.com>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20190402/d20a5b0a/attachment-0001.html>