On 04/06/2011 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Rini <tom_r...@mentor.com> wrote: >> On 04/06/2011 10:05 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tom Rini <tom_r...@mentor.com> wrote: >>>> On 04/05/2011 11:18 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Tom Rini <tom_r...@mentor.com> wrote: >>>>>> The previous 5.7 release was relatively close to 5.8 due to it bringing >>>>>> in a patch to sync with upstream work-in-progress. We skip over the >>>>>> 5.8 release and move to 5.9. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> there already are patches for 5.9 available too >>>>> ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.9/ncurses-5.9.patch.gz >>>> >>>> Wrong link? That reverse applies to ncurses 5.9 release. But >>>> regardless, is ncurses something we need to be tracking top of tree for? >>>> It seems like we needed to for 5.7 since there had been a lot going on >>>> without a release but that seems to have changed now. >>>> >>> >>> those patches usually contain critical bug fixes including security updates >>> so it will be of interest to keep track of it >> >> Well, it doesn't currently. And while I agree we need to do a good job, >> everywhere, of keeping track of security updates, I don't think we >> should move back to depending on a site that frequently removes patches. >> > > yes. cache the patches like yocto did for 5.7 recipes
That still leaves the problem of there not being a valid patch there at the moment. And I still don't see why ncurses needs to be in the bucket of recipes we track the scm for rather than relying on the latest stable release. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
