On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:00 PM Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:35:05AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > >... > > I am however asking if the Boost project is an example > > of something that, based on my own history building boost stuff and > > comments from others, if something where "project says it's stable" is > > not something that is stable enough for us. > > No, it would be wrong to blame the Boost project for anything here. > > Boost upgrades like 1.68.0 -> 1.69.0 always change the sonames of all > libraries, and they do contain API-incompatible changes (in this case > including removing a library). > > The commit comment in the thud branch even states > "Drop signals library as upstream has removed it". > > If you are looking for an example for an upgrade that would be obviously > inappropriate for a stable branch, it would be hard to imagine something > more obvious. > > I am not writing this for blaming someone for past mistakes, but to make > it clear that the actual problem with upgrades of recipes like boost or > lighttpd in thud was that they came from the upstream master branch and > not from upstream stable branches (which don't exist in these cases).
We could perhaps make better use of existing tools which track API changes in open source packages to get a feeling for which updates to consider for stable branches: https://abi-laboratory.pro/ For example, just based on the level of API changes, upgrades to boost should clearly be treated with some caution: https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=boost _______________________________________________ Openembedded-architecture mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-architecture
