On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 01:49 +0200, Marko Lindqvist wrote: > Add obsolete-automake-macros.patch that replaces automake macros > no longer supported by automake-1.13 with modern constructs. > > Signed-off-by: Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> > --- > .../file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch | 15 > +++++++++++++++ > meta/recipes-devtools/file/file_5.11.bb | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 > meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch > b/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..8b0d34c > --- /dev/null > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > +Upstream-Status: Fixed in file-5.12
Can we use a standard syntax for this, something like: Upstream-Status: Backport (fixed in file-5.12) (as mentioned in https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Contribution_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations) for the same reasons as I just mentioned to Marcin - so we can tell from scripts what status patches have and it helps reviewers in future know this can be dropped. The aim is to push patches upstream and standard syntax means we can get real numbers for how many patches we're carrying. I appreciate you can read and tell from the above what it means but I really want to try and use a consistent syntax. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
