On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? Not much yes however Releases happen not so frequently but bug fixes go into the branch and it makes it easier to upgrade may be same as adding patches to metadata but we don't need to keep them local in metadata It will match the process we do for other toolchain components > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
