<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/2/19 12:18 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+chaQfznYy8kNoRYynaZQuc1wA7VOxroxcgcPqp8dJcUB3V9A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Any update on this one? Or should we downgrade it
on our side when bumping oe-core/thud revision?</div>
</blockquote>
I have this stagged but it missed the QA cutoff. <br>
<br>
- armin<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+chaQfznYy8kNoRYynaZQuc1wA7VOxroxcgcPqp8dJcUB3V9A@mail.gmail.com"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 7:48
PM Martin Jansa <<a href="mailto:martin.jansa@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">martin.jansa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:45:08AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On 3/24/19 11:01 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:<br>
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +0000, <a
href="mailto:Mikko.Rapeli@bmw.de" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Mikko.Rapeli@bmw.de</a> wrote:<br>
> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:03:05PM +0100,
Andreas Müller wrote:<br>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Armin Kuster
<<a href="mailto:akuster808@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">akuster808@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >>>> This reverts commit
a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> This package update slipped in doing the
maint process. Removing it.<br>
> >> <snip><br>
> >>> Just my opinion - don't consider this as
NAK.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> * I already fixed the recipes that failed
for me. For at least one the<br>
> >>> change is no more compatible to 1.68.0.<br>
> >>> * This makes PV going backwards<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Thanks for addressing - what do others
think?<br>
> >> I'm not using thud yet, but updating boost in
stable branch would break<br>
> >> too many things and I would have to revert that
change in our trees. Some boost<br>
> >> updates are in the end quite trivial and just
require recompiling<br>
> >> everything but still, I would prefer that boost
is not updated in stable<br>
> >> branches unless there is a huge
security/stability issue with the old version.<br>
> > Agreed.<br>
> ><br>
> > I care less for PV going backwards nowadays, it's
probably less annoying than<br>
> > bumping PE first in master and then backporting PE
bump to thud.<br>
> ><br>
> > People with build issues related to boost upgrade
probably never<br>
> > built whole image to push it as an upgrade to end
devices.<br>
> <br>
> So do you agree with the revert?<br>
<br>
I do.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: <a
href="mailto:Martin.Jansa@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Martin.Jansa@gmail.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>