On (11/09/12 01:17), Bruce Ashfield wrote: > 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.
yes essentually IIRC I mentioned that recipe should be called blah_3.4.bb and blah_3.6.bb and so on and not really blah_3.4.x etc. OK I am glad we are on same page boundary here :) _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
