Your new patch needs a header, explaining why, and adding
Upstream-Status and Signed-off-by tags.
I meant this only as an RFC, to get feedback for my patch, from a
functional point of view, it is not intended to be the final patch.
I have a Signed-off-by tag, are you referring to something else?
Can you give me more details about Upstream-Status? I've google'd this
problem for a bit but could not find an existing patch for it, nor a bug
filled for this matter. Since I don't know yet if what I'm fixing it's
really a bug (or a misconfiguration on my side) I send this RFC to get a
hold of whether I'm on the good track here or not. If this patch turns
out to be valid, I'll get in touch with the guys from coreutils' mailing
lists, and try to push it upstream.
Radu,
For patches included in a given recipe we also have Signed-off-by as
well as the Upstream-Status tag as defined by:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
Please review this again.
Soul,
I understood your point, and in the *actual* patch I will update the
Sign-off-by and a short description, and an Upstream Status. However, I
reviewed again Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines and there is nothing in
there mentioned about RFCs. This is an RFC, and it was intended to get a
quick feedback from people more familiar/experienced with
coreutils/autotools. I need feedback about the functional change of this
patch. In my first reply I described as extensively as I could my
problem and my question.
As far as the RFCs go, how long should I wait on an RFC? It's been more
then a few days and nobody commented. Would it be appropriate to assume
that if nobody had any comments, the patch is valid?
Radu
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
