On 12-09-11 1:16 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On (11/09/12 00:58), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 12-09-11 12:55 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On (11/09/12 00:52), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 12-09-11 12:50 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On (10/09/12 14:11), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
Updating to 3.4.10 which has been soaking for a bit now, as well
as picking up the following meta commits from Tom Z:
would it also need bumping linux-libc-headers too ?
There's no new interfaces in the -stable updates, so there's no reason
to bump. I typically elect to jump to a 3.x.0 and leave it there, but
we had an interim bump that I wouldn't have done .. so we sit at 3.4.3
at the moment (which is still fine).
OK. Next question is, do stable updates get changes such that we need to
bump the linux-libc-headers ?
Not that I've ever seen.
OK thats what I was expecting to hear
so in theory if we always pin linux-libc-headers to major release we are
good. say 3.4.0 and then 3.6.0 and so on we really dont need 3.4.1 or
later and similarly for other versions. In this case we only bump
the linux-libc-headers recipe when we add a new major kernel release
Correct. If you check the mailing list archives, I was a bit surprised
to see it go to 3.4.3, but going forward, expect to only see major rev
bumps.
Cheers,
Bruce
Since there are no new features or user exported
defines that make it into the -stable updates, using the base
version headers
is reasonable. It saves churn, and keeps all of the QA and testing
results directly applicable throughout feature freeze by leaving the
the stable.
Cheers,
Bruce
_______________________________________________
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
