On 04/06/2011 11:32 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > 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
That can be said for just about every recipe we have. It sounds like you're suggesting we need _svn recipe or similar recipe for ncurses as well. I still don't see why ncurses is special in this regard and ask that when you see a worthwhile patch for ncurses 5.9 that you do another pull request. I'm just trying to keep oe-core in sync with openembedded.master. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
