eglibc: bump to version 2.19 SVN R25243
PATCH 1/1 eglibc: bump to version 2.19 SVN R25243
--- .../2.18-svnr23787/glibc-0001-accept-make4.patch | 33 ---------------------- package/glibc/glibc.mk | 2 +- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 34 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 package/glibc/2.18-svnr23787/glibc-0001-accept-make4.patch
package/glibc/2.18-svnr23787/glibc-0001-accept-make4.patch deleted +0 -33
@@ -1,33 +0,0 @@ -Backport upstream patch (28d708c44bc47b56f6551ff285f78edcf61c208a) to accept -make-4.0 or newer. -We patch both configure and configure.in files so if we ever have to run -autoreconf in the glibc source, then the fix will be propagated properly. - -Signed-off-by: Markos Chandras <[email protected]> - -Index: glibc-2.18-svnr23787/libc/configure -=================================================================== ---- glibc-2.18-svnr23787.orig/libc/configure -+++ glibc-2.18-svnr23787/libc/configure -@@ -4772,7 +4772,7 @@ $as_echo_n "checking version of $MAKE... - ac_prog_version=`$MAKE --version 2>&1 | sed -n 's/^.*GNU Make[^0-9]*\([0-9][0-9.]*\).*$/\1/p'` - case $ac_prog_version in - '') ac_prog_version="v. ?.??, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;; -- 3.79* | 3.[89]*) -+ 3.79* | 3.[89]* | [4-9].* | [1-9][0-9]*) - ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;; - *) ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;; - -Index: glibc-2.18-svnr23787/libc/configure.in -=================================================================== ---- glibc-2.18-svnr23787.orig/libc/configure.in -+++ glibc-2.18-svnr23787/libc/configure.in -@@ -989,7 +989,7 @@ AC_CHECK_PROG_VER(CC, ${ac_tool_prefix}g - critic_missing="$critic_missing gcc") - AC_CHECK_PROG_VER(MAKE, gnumake gmake make, --version, - [GNU Make[^0-9]*\([0-9][0-9.]*\)], -- [3.79* | 3.[89]*], critic_missing="$critic_missing make") -+ [3.79* | 3.[89]* | [4-9].* | [1-9][0-9]*], critic_missing="$critic_missing make") - - AC_CHECK_PROG_VER(MSGFMT, gnumsgfmt gmsgfmt msgfmt, --version, - [GNU gettext.* \([0-9]*\.[0-9.]*\)],
package/glibc/glibc.mk +1 -1
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ GLIBC_SRC_SUBDIR = . endif else ifeq ($(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_EGLIBC),y) -GLIBC_VERSION = 2.18-svnr23787 +GLIBC_VERSION = 2.19-svnr25243 GLIBC_SITE = http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/eglibc/ GLIBC_SOURCE = eglibc-$(GLIBC_VERSION).tar.bz2 GLIBC_SRC_SUBDIR = libc
Signature · 1 line
1.8.3.2
PATCH 1/1 eglibc: bump to version 2.19 SVN R25243
Dear Gustavo Zacarias,
Quoted 6 lines · Gustavo Zacarias
Signed-off-by Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]>--- .../2.18-svnr23787/glibc-0001-accept-make4.patch | 33 ---------------------- package/glibc/glibc.mk | 2 +- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 34 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 package/glibc/2.18-svnr23787/glibc-0001-accept-make4.patch
So we don't do like glibc where we support both 2.18 and 2.19 ? This is really a question, maybe it makes sense to only support one version at a time. In which case we could remove 2.18 from glibc.
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 eglibc: bump to version 2.19 SVN R25243
Quoted 3 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
So we don't do like glibc where we support both 2.18 and 2.19 ? This is really a question, maybe it makes sense to only support one version at a time. In which case we could remove 2.18 from glibc.
My opinion is that we should just keep it as simple as possible. If there's a special need for some architecture (like microblaze) let it be so, but really unless we know there's some issue or exception i don't think there's much value in keeping multiple versions, specially since *glibc is backwards ABI compatible.
Regards.
PATCH 1/1 eglibc: bump to version 2.19 SVN R25243
Dear Gustavo Zacarias,
Quoted 9 lines · Gustavo Zacarias
Quoted 3 lines
So we don't do like glibc where we support both 2.18 and 2.19 ? This is really a question, maybe it makes sense to only support one version at a time. In which case we could remove 2.18 from glibc.
My opinion is that we should just keep it as simple as possible. If there's a special need for some architecture (like microblaze) let it be so, but really unless we know there's some issue or exception i don't think there's much value in keeping multiple versions, specially since *glibc is backwards ABI compatible.
Fine with me. My impression so far was that for critical components such as gcc/binutils/gdb/libc, we were keeping older versions a little bit longer to give it some time to test the newer version before forcing everyone to upgrade. Surely we need to continue to do this with gcc, where most of the 4.x.0 versions are typically broken on at least one architecture.
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 eglibc: bump to version 2.19 SVN R25243
Quoted 6 lines · Thomas Petazzoni
Quoted 5 lines
My opinion is that we should just keep it as simple as possible. If there's a special need for some architecture (like microblaze) let it be so, but really unless we know there's some issue or exception i don't think there's much value in keeping multiple versions, specially since *glibc is backwards ABI compatible.
Quoted 6 lines
Fine with me. My impression so far was that for critical components such as gcc/binutils/gdb/libc, we were keeping older versions a little bit longer to give it some time to test the newer version before forcing everyone to upgrade. Surely we need to continue to do this with gcc, where most of the 4.x.0 versions are typically broken on at least one architecture.
D'oh, eglibc 2.19 is broken for PowerPC SPE ABI.
So it seems we'll do two versions after all.
I'll send a revised patch shortly.
Regards.
PATCH 1/1 eglibc: bump to version 2.19 SVN R25243
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Gustavo" == Gustavo Zacarias <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Fine with me. My impression so far was that for critical components such as gcc/binutils/gdb/libc, we were keeping older versions a little bit longer to give it some time to test the newer version before forcing everyone to upgrade. Surely we need to continue to do this with gcc, where most of the 4.x.0 versions are typically broken on at least one architecture.
D'oh, eglibc 2.19 is broken for PowerPC SPE ABI.
So it seems we'll do two versions after all.
I'll send a revised patch shortly.
Ok, thanks. It anyway seems like the safest option (and matches our other toolchain-related packages)
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard