[oe] [oe-commits] Khem Raj : binutils-cross: Sync with oe-core

[Khem Raj]

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Andrea Adami <andrea.adami at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:51 PM, <git at git.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
>> Module: meta-openembedded.git
>> Branch: master
>> Commit: 92b02b7209e426a70cc5626e7bdbc82052e01ac5
>> URL:
>> http://git.openembedded.org/?p=meta-openembedded.git&a=commit;h=92b02b7209e426a70cc5626e7bdbc82052e01ac5
>>
>> Author: Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
>> Date:   Sun Oct 16 01:28:32 2011 +0000
>>
>> binutils-cross: Sync with oe-core
>>
>> Now we have own copy of binutils-cross in meta-oe
>>
>
> I can't unfortunately find the discussion which supposedly provided a valid
> reason for binutils-2.20 in meta-oe while binutils-2.21 is in oe-core.
> I'm against that kind of policy for meta-oe, particularly when it's about
> toolchain.

oe-core is deprecating versions that are still used by consumers of
meta-oe (mainly angstrom 2010 release)
since its toolchain and it will also benefit derivatives of angstrom.
Angstrom could also move these elements
into meta-angstrom if we think that its only angstrom specific and no
other consumers of oe-core needs them
layer maintainers make judgement call which they think should benefit
wider community

similar but not for binutils here is a relevant thread

http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2011-October/010700.html

I think angstrom needs older binutils to support older kernels.

>
> we need to sync with oe-core periodically
>>
> That's just one of the bad effects :/
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net>
>>
>>
> my 2c
>
> Andrea
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>