Hi all, On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:06:55AM +0100, Quentin Schulz wrote: > > > The reason why I didn't bother to send a patch to busybox before pinging > > > on this patch was that we're already different from the upstream > > > simple.script > > > so it didn't make sense to me to add the Upstream-Status: pending or > > > something on the patch (in some ways, since it's patching the file > > > directly and not adding a patch in SRC_URI). Anyway, digressing. Do you > > > want a patch to be sent to busybox ML (or PR or whatever they use) > > > before taking this patch? > > > > > > > I think the problem this patch fixes is generic and somewhere the > > script OE has is also derived from > > that example, so while the patch in itself is enough for OE, it would > > be better if it was in upstream too > > perhaps one less thing to worry about when we cherry pick changes from > > upstream script in future. > > > > Agreed, I'll put it on my TODO-list. If I do not send an answer on this > mail with the link to the PR or patch in the next week, anyone, please ping > me. >
*cough* Took a bit more *cough* than a week *cough* http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2020-June/088028.html Quentin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#139554): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/139554 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/72391372/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
