On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:45:08AM -0700, akuster808 wrote: > > > On 3/24/19 11:01 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:52:06AM +0000, mikko.rap...@bmw.de wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:03:05PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Armin Kuster <akuster...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> This reverts commit a384248938ea9db096866bf4ec8678d35ca62a12. > >>>> > >>>> This package update slipped in doing the maint process. Removing it. > >> <snip> > >>> Just my opinion - don't consider this as NAK. > >>> > >>> * I already fixed the recipes that failed for me. For at least one the > >>> change is no more compatible to 1.68.0. > >>> * This makes PV going backwards > >>> > >>> Thanks for addressing - what do others think? > >> I'm not using thud yet, but updating boost in stable branch would break > >> too many things and I would have to revert that change in our trees. Some > >> boost > >> updates are in the end quite trivial and just require recompiling > >> everything but still, I would prefer that boost is not updated in stable > >> branches unless there is a huge security/stability issue with the old > >> version. > > Agreed. > > > > I care less for PV going backwards nowadays, it's probably less annoying > > than > > bumping PE first in master and then backporting PE bump to thud. > > > > People with build issues related to boost upgrade probably never > > built whole image to push it as an upgrade to end devices. > > So do you agree with the revert?
I do. -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core