On 2017-09-23, Tom Rini wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 07:43:09PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 09/23/2017 07:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 07:33:44PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> >> On 09/23/2017 07:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 08:56:08AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >> >>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:39:44PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> >>>>> On 09/22/2017 04:20 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:15:25PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> With support for overlays and calling the -@ flag to dtc we need to >> >>>>>>> have >> >>>>>>> at least 1.4.3 available now. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> >>>>>>> Reported-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> >> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
It is unclear to me is why this was so urgent to push through while there was ongoing discussion raising some reasonable concerns... >> >>>>> Debian still only has 1.4.2 even in unstable, so u-boot/master no >> >>>>> longer >> >>>>> builds on any debian system. >> >>>> >> >>>> Then perhaps we need to mirror the kernel and provide / build dtc, but >> >>>> allow for people to override it. >> >>> >> >>> This isn't too hard and I'm pushing that through Jenkins now to confirm >> >>> I've got all the logic correct. I think this will be the least error >> >>> prone method long term. >> >> >> >> NAK, this is the same thing which chromium does and what Debian is >> >> trying to stop -- vendoring. We will end up with patched custom DTC out >> >> of sync with upstream. >> > Shrug, it's what Linux does, and what QEMU does, and probably what other >> > projects do as well since apparently even Debian/Unstable is 2 releases >> > and nearly a year behind (or, 9 months if you don't want to exaggerate). Given that dtc releases were: 1.4.0 on Sat Jun 22 13:06:27 2013 -0500, 1.4.1 on Wed Nov 12 14:31:44 2014 +1100, 1.4.2 on Sat Sep 3 21:02:46 2016 +1000, 1.4.3 on Tue Feb 28 16:10:59 2017 +1100, 1.4.4 on Fri Mar 10 11:22:18 2017 +1100 At least two releases are over a year apart; It's not like dtc is a high-velocity train here... Being "2 releases and nearly a year" behind doesn't seem all that unreasonable... you could just as easily, and more accurately, describe it as "only two releases and almost 7 months behind." >> And it will likely stay that way for debian stable. I am really >> disappointed in the "Shrug" reaction to such massive breakage. > > Nope and nor will it catch old-stable breaking in January when gcc-6.x > or newer is required. Debian's oldstable would be unreasonable, sure. There's a big difference between requiring gcc-6, which is present in the *current* Debian stable release, which will be supported for another 2-5+ years... and in constrast, dtc 1.4.3, which was released not quite 7 months ago, while Debian had already frozen new upstream versions in preparation for a release 3 months later. The timing for dtc 1.4.3 just wasn't good for Debian stable; not through any fault of the maintainers. For what it's worth, I've submitted some updated packaging to the device-tree-compiler (a.k.a. dtc) maintainers in Debian, including updating the version. Hopefully that will get uploaded one way or another soon. Given that Debian in general prefers not to embed code copies, with u-boot, I'm hoping it will be fairly straightforward to use an external dtc, once the newer dtc version is available in Debian? live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
