This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi Bryan, Even though uclibc hasn't had branch updates for a long time, it's still alive and kicking. Patches and additional functionalities go into the upstream git version. Would it make sense to use the git version or a daily snapshot, just because of the patches that are in? Thanks, Reinoud. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Bryan Hundven <bryanhundven@gmail.com> wrote: > Reinoud > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Reinoud Koornstra > <reinoudkoornstra@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> Is it possible to merge the patches from buildroot for uclibc in? >> The have 65 patches for it and we could use them too. >> Any thoughts about this? >> Thanks, > > There are two points of view on this topic, and it kinda goes the same > for other components like gcc, binutils, glibc, musl-libc, newlib, > gdb, etc... > > The first is: Crosstool-NG is designed to create reproducible > toolchains. Meaning that I should be able to go to a previous branch > of crosstool-ng where I made an older toolchain, and it should still > work (although older branches have lacked maintenance) to build the > toolchain I built before. Toolchains you've built with 1.20.0 should > continue to work after we cut 1.20.1 or 1.21.0 (which will happen > sooner now). But these builds only use released source code. Say gcc > 4.9.1 or 4.9.2. It would not be true for pre-released 4.9.3 or current > development versions of gcc 5.0. > > The second is that a lot of these projects do "branch updates". Take > gcc for instance. Even after 4.9.2 was released, there are many > updates to the 4.9 branch > (https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/gcc-4_9-branch) > that add bugfixes, where as the mainline development is happening in > the master branch for the 5.0 release which contains new features and > bug fixes. > > Other projects like uClibc have not made releases in a very long time, > and live in that "Branch Update"/"Snapshot" state. In the past I had > sent patches and urged Yann to add support for "Branch > Update"/"Snapshot" support, and my efforts were rejected for the > reasons of the first point of view I listed above. I can't use a > git/svn tag to base the version of uClibc was based on for the > toolchain build, because tags are "movable objects". Meaning, if I > used HEAD... HEAD is always the latest. uClibc also hasn't made any > other tags then releases, so there is nothing else to reference > besides actual commits. > > I've mentioned before that I don't like the idea of keeping a large > stack of patches for branch updates and fixes from upstream, when we > should just be pulling whatever upstream produces. > > So with that, I feel that uClibc should be the first in-line to get > "Snapshot" support. How we handle that is another story or RFC on how > we keep track of commits used to create a toolchain and how we track > that to reproduce that toolchain in the future. > > Lets keep this conversation open and have a community conversation > around this. I'd like to hear what others think. > > Cheers, > > -Bryan > > >> Reinoud. >> >> -- >> For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq >> -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |