On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 14:39 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <[email protected]> > > --- > > ...n_2.21.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} | 0 > > ...tils-cross_2.21.bb => binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} | 0 > > ...rosssdk_2.21.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} | 0 > > .../110-arm-eabi-conf.patch | 0 > > .../binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch | 0 > > .../binutils-poison.patch | 0 > > .../binutils-pr12366.patch | 0 > > .../binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch | 0 > > ...binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch | 0 > > ...binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch | 0 > > ...ils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch | 0 > > .../binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch | 0 > > .../binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch | 0 > > .../libiberty_path_fix.patch | 0 > > .../libtool-2.4-update.patch | 1725 > > ++++++++++---------- > > .../libtool-rpath-fix.patch | 0 > > .../{binutils_2.21.bb => binutils_2.21.1.bb} | 7 +- > > 17 files changed, 871 insertions(+), 861 deletions(-) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.bb => > > binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb} (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.21.bb => > > binutils-cross_2.21.1.bb} (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.21.bb => > > binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb} (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/110-arm-eabi-conf.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-2.19.1-ld-sysroot.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-poison.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-pr12366.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-uclibc-100-uclibc-conf.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-001_ld_makefile_patch.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-006_better_file_error.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-uclibc-300-012_check_ldrunpath_length.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-uclibc-gas-needs-libm.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/binutils-x86_64_i386_biarch.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/libiberty_path_fix.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/libtool-2.4-update.patch (94%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.21 => > > binutils}/libtool-rpath-fix.patch (100%) > > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.21.bb => > > binutils_2.21.1.bb} (87%) > > > > How about changing the recipe to fetch from binutils-2_21-branch and > call it binutils 2.21 as it is
I don't really see the benefits in fetching this from the SCM? Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
