[oe] [PATCH] angstrom-2010.x.conf: Prefer binutils 2.21 and uclibc-git

[Tom Rini]

On 01/24/2011 02:59 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/1/24 Koen Kooi<k.kooi at student.utwente.nl>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 24-01-11 10:15, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Koen Kooi<k.kooi at student.utwente.nl>  wrote:
>>> On 24-01-11 03:03, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>> * no need to pin older udev with uclibc/git either
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj<raj.khem at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> NAK! binutils 2.21 introduces way too many problem at this moment, those
>>> need to get solved before switching to it.
>>>
>>>> hmmm. Too vague a statement. Do you have list of issues somewhere I can look at
>>>> it built the console-image x11-image images I tried and booted
>>>> console-image too.
>>
>> Try building anything that uses linux-omap-psp 2.6.32. You will run into
>> the secure mode problem. That one is relatively easy to solve, but it
>> needs to get solved *before* the switch, not after.
>>
>> But besided that, so a change needs to get RFC'd, tested and signed off
>> by the angstrom maintainers before it gets pushed. It's a toolchain
>> change and we take toolchains seriously.
>>
>> Waking up and seeing it applied without all that is *extremely*
>> insulting. So I reverted it.
>>
>
> Pushing distro changes without review is against the policy:
>
>> From http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Policy:
>
>   * Distro config changes should be reviewed by the distro maintainers
>     where known
>
> Reveting changes from others is also against the policy:
>
> http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/Revert_Policy
>
> (and imho equally bad (or insulting if you prefer))
>
>
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Well, no.  I'm pretty sure the "you just broke my distribution" falls 
into the yes, it's OK to push the revert before the other party wakes up 
and says "Oops, sorry!".

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation