On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:33:20PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 08:29 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Richard Purdie > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > -GCCVERSION ?= "4.9%" > > > +GCCVERSION ?= "5.2%" > > > > a small nit. Make it 5.% to logically indicate that 5.x is a bug fix > > release and next big upgrade will be > > 6.x > > I'm not sure this would be a good idea. We have had 4.8 alongside 4.9 > and can imagine doing something like that with newer 5.x releases > depending on how they work out. I doubt 5.2% hurts anything, apart from > needing to tweak that file slightly more often...
But that was before GCC changed versioning scheme in 5, see "Version Numbering Scheme for GCC 5 and Up" section in https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html Having 5.1 alongside 5.2 isn't the same as 4.8 alongside 4.9 was. I agree with Khem. Ross: I agree that even small point release has to be tested, but this variable is useful only to have multiple versions alongside each other, which shouldn't be the case for 5.1 and 5.2 (or even 5.2.0 and 5.2.1 in your example). -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
