On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 10:18 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 7 January 2013 12:11, Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What's the correct status for fixes that are not really backports, > >> but have happened independently in oe and upstream? > >> - If practically identical, still mark as "Backport"? > >> - If different solution, "Inappropriate [not needed]"? > > > > If you did it and then later discovered it's happened upstream > > independently, it's essentially a backport.
The best thing is to consider how we use the information. I'd happily accept "Backport" in this case as meaning "the upstream latest version has equivalent functionality". You can note the status after the word to give specifics if needed. > Maybe it'd be better to not patch at all and update to the newer > recipe version? I don't think that is a reasonable policy in all cases. I'm not going to block automake on all upstreams making new releases for example. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
