On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Tom Rini <tom_r...@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 11:27 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Tom Rini <tom_r...@mentor.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> 5.9 was released few days back so that patch might be lean for now
>> but I assume overtime it will get fatter
>
> It's invalid at the moment, yes.  But you haven't explained why ncurses
> needs to be in the bleeding edge bucket.  Usually this is for stuff that
> hasn't really reached a stability point.
>
It does not have to be but those patches are cumulative fixed that are done
on top of a release. I am sure we will also run into the problems those will
fix thats why its better to keep and eye on them
> --
> Tom Rini
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
>

_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Reply via email to