On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Tom Rini <tom_r...@mentor.com> wrote: > 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. >
Those patches are not same as all patches that would be applied to say svn version these are fixes on top of a release e.g. 5.9 I was merely suggesting that your upgrade patch is fine please see if there already are some fixes on top of 5.9 that we need thats all > -- > Tom Rini > Mentor Graphics Corporation > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core