[oe] [RFC] Toolchain recipes, versions, removal and consolidation

[Martin Jansa]

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.Jansa at gmail.com