On 08/08/2012 06:52 PM, Liang Li wrote: > On 2012-08-09 09:41, Darren Hart <darren.h...@intel.com> wrote: >> On 08/08/2012 06:24 PM, Liang Li wrote: >>> On 2012-08-09 08:36, Darren Hart <darren.h...@intel.com> wrote: >>>> On 08/07/2012 08:37 PM, Liang Li wrote: >>>>> On 2012-08-07 22:02, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 23:43 +0800, Liang Li wrote: >>>>>>> Via EXTRA_CFLAGS, we can pass the sysroot include directory to perf to >>>>>>> provide slang.h rather than hardcoded host dir in perf's Makefile. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pass WERROR=0 to perf's Makefile to avoid warnings being treated >>>>>>> as errors. Warnings are not fatal, and while they will be fixed in the >>>>>>> future, there's no need for them to break the build. >>>>>> >>>>>> No mention of the additional slang dependency is made here? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Forgot mentioned it. Good catch, but the one line change that add >>>>> slang to DEPENDS seems clear enough for everyone, isn't? :) >>>> >>>> Nope, the patch header declares the intent of the patch. >>>> >>> >>> Can't agree with you anymore. :) But we don't list all changes(even >>> one line straight forward change) in patch header, don't we? :) >> >> OK, so we're getting off into the weeds here for a relatively minor >> change. However, the answer to your question is YES we do list all the >> changes in the patch header. We don't list them individually, but rather >> group them functionally. > > Still agree. Yes, we did this all along the time, no confusion here. > Then you think the one line change in this patch, to add slang to > DEPENDS, is functional, *should* be listed out in patch header > explicitly. That is our deviation here, I thought that is > straightforward, and the patch is *mainly* about *fix* an issue other > than add a function, the one line change is just part of fix so I was > mainly focus on explain intention of the fix. :) > >> Adding a dependency to a recipe is a very clear >> example of a functional change that should be made explicit in the >> change log in my opinion. >> > > No problem, add it to patch header would be fine to me, but here let's > focusing on 'do we need changes in this patch'.
As for me, I am happy with the patch content itself. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
