update OLDEST_KERNEL
cover update OLDEST_KERNEL
The following changes since commit f1fc6d084b079dea21ff1a30b815496452042490:
pulseaudio: add 0.9.23 (2011-07-07 13:44:36 +0100)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib paule/oldest-kernel-26
http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=paule/oldest-kernel-26
Paul Eggleton (2):
bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
eglibc: bump PR for OLDEST_KERNEL change
meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 2 +- meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.12.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb | 2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1
PATCH 1/2 bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Since we no longer support 2.4, update this setting to 2.6.0. (This affects eglibc's kernel support).
--- meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
meta/conf/bitbake.conf +1 -1
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ SDKPATHNATIVE = "${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${SDK_SYS}" # Kernel info. ################################################################## -OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.4.0" +OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.6.0" STAGING_KERNEL_DIR = "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/kernel" ##################################################################
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0
Op 7 jul. 2011 om 14:11 heeft Paul Eggleton <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 29 lines
Since we no longer support 2.4, update this setting to 2.6.0. (This affects eglibc's kernel support).
Signed-off-by Paul Eggleton <[email protected]>---
meta/conf/bitbake.conf| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)meta/conf/bitbake.conf +1
-1@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ SDKPATHNATIVE = "${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${SDK_SYS}" # Kernel info. ################################################################## -OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.4.0" +OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.6.0"
STAGING_KERNEL_DIR= "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/kernel"##################################################################
Signature · 7 lines
1.7.4.1 _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 2 lines · On Thursday 07 July 2011 15:24:46 Koen Kooi wrote:
angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0
Personally I don't know enough about which crusty old 2.6 kernels people are still using out there, so I figured 2.6.0 was the safest bet.
A trawl of the OE history turns up these two:
-----------------------------------
commit 8b0202e6e3f90a772df301e8522f9deb03e50132
Author: Tom Rini <[email protected]> Date: Wed Mar 3 12:17:38 2010 -0700
glibc*.inc: Bump OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16
Per glibc's ChangeLog, 2.6.16 is the minimum required by at least glibc 2.9
Prior to this, it was a murky 2.6.14 + patches to 2.6.16 (when it was all upstream).
-----------------------------------
commit 794e8652f5c4fef71a8b9ab834b39f75b99f9420
Author: Koen Kooi <[email protected]> Date: Thu May 21 20:30:37 2009 +0200
Angstrom 2009.X: set OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.16 to avoid problems withppoll()
-----------------------------------
Any further comments/info? Should we be using 2.6.16 in oe-core as well?
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 22 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Thursday 07 July 2011 15:24:46 Koen Kooi wrote:
angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0
Personally I don't know enough about which crusty old 2.6 kernels people are still using out there, so I figured 2.6.0 was the safest bet.
A trawl of the OE history turns up these two:
-----------------------------------
commit8b0202e6e3f90a772df301e8522f9deb03e50132Author: Tom Rini <[email protected]> Date: Wed Mar 3 12:17:38 2010 -0700glibc*.inc: Bump
OLDEST_KERNELto 2.6.16Per glibc's ChangeLog, 2.6.16 is the minimum required by at least glibc 2.9
Prior to this, it was a murky 2.6.14 + patches to 2.6.16 (when it was all upstream).
-----------------------------------
commit794e8652f5c4fef71a8b9ab834b39f75b99f9420
Quoted 8 lines
Author: Koen Kooi <[email protected]> Date: Thu May 21 20:30:37 2009 +0200Angstrom 2009.X: set
OLDEST_KERNELto 2.6.16 to avoid problems withppoll()
-----------------------------------Any further comments/info? Should we be using 2.6.16 in oe-core as well?
I'd suggest yes...
Cheers,
Richard
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
In reply to Paul EggletonQuoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Thursday 07 July 2011 15:24:46 Koen Kooi wrote:
angstrom has been setting it to 2.6.16 for some years now, I forget which bug that fixed over 2.6.0
Personally I don't know enough about which crusty old 2.6 kernels people are still using out there, so I figured 2.6.0 was the safest bet.
If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO
Quoted 28 lines
A trawl of the OE history turns up these two:
-----------------------------------
commit8b0202e6e3f90a772df301e8522f9deb03e50132Author: Tom Rini<[email protected]> Date: Wed Mar 3 12:17:38 2010 -0700glibc*.inc: Bump
OLDEST_KERNELto 2.6.16Per glibc's ChangeLog, 2.6.16 is the minimum required by at least glibc 2.9
Prior to this, it was a murky 2.6.14 + patches to 2.6.16 (when it was all upstream).
-----------------------------------
commit794e8652f5c4fef71a8b9ab834b39f75b99f9420Author: Koen Kooi<[email protected]> Date: Thu May 21 20:30:37 2009 +0200Angstrom 2009.X: set
OLDEST_KERNELto 2.6.16 to avoid problems withppoll()
-----------------------------------Any further comments/info? Should we be using 2.6.16 in oe-core as well?
Cheers,
Paul
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:
If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO
It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:
If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO
It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.
It's very rare that we get a free hand in the choice of kernel version. We get stuck with whichever version the silicon vendor chooses to support, so it would be bad for us if we couldn't use an older kernel in our layers.
Cheers,
Chris.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 4 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 09:46:34 Chris Elston wrote:
It's very rare that we get a free hand in the choice of kernel version. We get stuck with whichever version the silicon vendor chooses to support, so it would be bad for us if we couldn't use an older kernel in our layers.
Just out of interest, what's the oldest kernel you have to deal with in your current/recent projects?
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
In reply to Paul EggletonQuoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:
If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO
It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.
They can always provide their own OLDEST_KERNEL setting, though. To some extent I think it's a bit academic what the default in oe-core is.
p.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 10:53:49 Phil Blundell wrote:
They can always provide their own
OLDEST_KERNELsetting, though. To some extent I think it's a bit academic what the default in oe-core is.
Yes, but let's have a sensible default value, in particular that will allow the majority not to experience subtle problems that they will have to spend time tracking down. Many people coming to OE fresh will not know this setting even exists - I only discovered it the other day by accident.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 8 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 10:53:49 Phil Blundell wrote:
They can always provide their own
OLDEST_KERNELsetting, though. To some extent I think it's a bit academic what the default in oe-core is.Yes, but let's have a sensible default value, in particular that will allow the majority not to experience subtle problems that they will have to spend time tracking down. Many people coming to OE fresh will not know this setting even exists - I only discovered it the other day by accident.
If OLDEST_KERNEL is set to a value that's too new then the failure you get is anything but subtle: glibc will just print "kernel too old" and exit. I guess we could enhance that message to refer directly to OLDEST_KERNEL to make it a bit more obvious what you need to do. Also, we could teach kernel.bbclass to issue a diagnostic if you try to build a kernel that's older than OLDEST_KERNEL.
p.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 3 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 11:12:12 Phil Blundell wrote:
If
OLDEST_KERNELis set to a value that's too new then the failure you get is anything but subtle: glibc will just print "kernel too old" and exit.
OK, I had just assumed you would just get errors about missing syscalls, good to know that it would be more obvious than that.
Quoted 4 lines
I guess we could enhance that message to refer directly to
OLDEST_KERNELto make it a bit more obvious what you need to do. Also, we could teach kernel.bbclass to issue a diagnostic if you try to build a kernel that's older thanOLDEST_KERNEL.
These sound like good ideas. I'll add them to my todo list to have a look at if nobody else gets there first.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
In reply to Paul EggletonQuoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:
If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO
It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.
Its similar to a situation where some of the layers might be using gcc older than 4.6.0 but we still chose 4.6.0
in default distro vars. There always is a possibility to override it if user has to.
Quoted 9 lines
Cheers,
Paul--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: update OLDEST_KERNEL to 2.6.0
Quoted 6 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 4 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 2 lines · On Friday 08 July 2011 06:21:16 Khem Raj wrote:
If oe-core never supported older kernel than 2.6.37 then setting it to 2.6.37 would be better IMO
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
It's not necessarily just about oe-core - it's about what layers get used on top, and some of those will be using kernels older than 2.6.37.
Its similar to a situation where some of the layers might be using gcc older than 4.6.0 but we still chose 4.6.0
in default distro vars. There always is a possibility to override it if user has to.
For now, I've merged the 2.6.16 patch since there seem to be good reasons for making things at least that recent. Its certainly better than 2.4! :)
Cheers,
Richard
PATCH 2/2 eglibc: bump PR for OLDEST_KERNEL change
In reply to Paul EggletonBump PR as eglibc should be rebuilt for the new OLDEST_KERNEL value.
--- meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.12.bb | 2 +- meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.12.bb +1 -1
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ require eglibc.inc DEPENDS += "gperf-native" -PR = "r18" +PR = "r19" SRCREV = "14158"
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc_2.13.bb +1 -1
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ SRCREV = "14157" DEPENDS += "gperf-native" FILESPATHPKG =. "eglibc-svn:" -PR = "r5" +PR = "r6" PR_append = "+svnr${SRCPV}" EGLIBC_BRANCH="eglibc-2_13"
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1