On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Andrea Adami <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:51 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Module: meta-openembedded.git >> Branch: master >> Commit: 92b02b7209e426a70cc5626e7bdbc82052e01ac5 >> URL: >> http://git.openembedded.org/?p=meta-openembedded.git&a=commit;h=92b02b7209e426a70cc5626e7bdbc82052e01ac5 >> >> Author: Khem Raj <[email protected]> >> Date: Sun Oct 16 01:28:32 2011 +0000 >> >> binutils-cross: Sync with oe-core >> >> Now we have own copy of binutils-cross in meta-oe >> > > I can't unfortunately find the discussion which supposedly provided a valid > reason for binutils-2.20 in meta-oe while binutils-2.21 is in oe-core. > I'm against that kind of policy for meta-oe, particularly when it's about > toolchain.
oe-core is deprecating versions that are still used by consumers of meta-oe (mainly angstrom 2010 release) since its toolchain and it will also benefit derivatives of angstrom. Angstrom could also move these elements into meta-angstrom if we think that its only angstrom specific and no other consumers of oe-core needs them layer maintainers make judgement call which they think should benefit wider community similar but not for binutils here is a relevant thread http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2011-October/010700.html I think angstrom needs older binutils to support older kernels. > > we need to sync with oe-core periodically >> > That's just one of the bad effects :/ > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <[email protected]> >> >> > my 2c > > Andrea > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
