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

[Khem Raj]

On 10/16/2011 11:35 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/10/17 Khem Raj<raj.khem at gmail.com>
>
>> 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
>>
>
> I feel if a distro or bsp needs a version of a package that is older than
> the oe-core one, it should be stored in the distro or bsp layer.
> Or is meta-oe also wanting to keep binutils 18.50? In oe classic this is
> used by the nios2 hw (and afaik there is no newer binutils supporting
> nios2)? I'd say if some layer needs older versions it is up to them.
>

This is a bit different when a version is retired from oe-core there 
might be more than one bsp using it therefore it would be more 
beneficial to keep it in a common layer

> What we are lacking here is a policy on purpose/goal of meta-oe and what
> goes in (and what not).

This has been discussed quite a bit when we decided to move to layered 
structure. meta-oe infact is an umbrella of layers and each layer can 
have it own development policies.

>
> Frans
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel