On 11/28/2015 01:30 PM, Christian Boltz wrote: > Hello, > > Am Samstag, 28. November 2015 schrieb John Johansen: >> v3 >> >> change conflicting/unknown option warning message slightly >> output error string on failure >> add binutils dir >> add manpage >> add makefile >> add pot file > >> === added file 'binutils/Makefile' >> --- binutils/Makefile 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000 >> +++ binutils/Makefile 2015-11-28 18:18:25 +0000 > > It looks like you copied large parts of parser/Makefile. > Would it make sense to split those common parts off to a separate file, > like common/Make-c.rules? > yes, I did. And yes it might make sense to factor them
> (That's nothing that should stop you from adding aa-enabled, so feel > free to do that as a follow-up patch.) > right > BTW: It seems you never commited the parser/Makefile cleanup patch series > you sent a while ago. Is there a special reason, or did you just forget > it? (Also, does binutils/Makefile need some similar cleanups, or are they > already integrated?) > Not forgotten, I just haven't gotten around to rebasing it to factor out the 2 patches that have not been acked. I have it on my todo and it will some up some time this weekend, hopefully. This contains several of the fixes, but I will check and make sure it isn't missing anything. >> === added file 'binutils/aa-enabled.c' >> --- binutils/aa-enabled.c 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000 >> +++ binutils/aa-enabled.c 2015-11-28 17:34:45 +0000 > ... >> +#ifndef PACKAGE >> +#define PACKAGE "" >> +#define LOCALEDIR "" >> +#endif > > Now that we have a nice Makefile, is this still needed? > No >> === added file 'binutils/po/aa-enabled.pot' >> --- binutils/po/aa-enabled.pot 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000 >> +++ binutils/po/aa-enabled.pot 2015-11-28 18:23:11 +0000 >> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ >> +# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE. >> +# Copyright (C) YEAR Canonical Ltd >> +# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE >> package. + >> # FIRST AUTHOR <EMAIL@ADDRESS>, YEAR. > > That's a very informative copyright header, especially the uppercase > parts ;-) > hehe, I suppose I should fix that :) > > That said: The patch looks good to me (with the questions answered or > addressed), but I'll leave acking it for someone who understands C > better. > -- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
