On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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.
Sure but if there're a new release with the fix it is better to upgrade than backport the fix (with exceptions, of course). My point is: it is good to verify if there're a new release and use it if possible. Otherwise backport the fix. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
