Joshua, > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Lock [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:08 AM > To: Bryan Evenson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 00/70] Proposed changes for fido > > Hi Bryan, > > On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 12:40 +0000, Bryan Evenson wrote: > > > Bryan Evenson (1): > > > util-linux: Add lastb to alternatives > > > > There is a refined version of this patch available that was submitted > > to the mailing list here: > > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015 > > -April/104132.html. It uses PACKAGECONFIG to remove last, lastb and > > the man pages for last and lastb from the util-linux build if 'last' > > is not in PACKAGECONFIG. It also adds 'last' to PACKAGECONFIG by > > default which mimics previous behavior. I'm still a little unclear on > > the patch approval process, so I assume the updated patch would need > > to be accepted into master before being backported into fido? > > Unless the patch is specific to the stable branch we only pull in changes > into a > stable branch once they have been reviewed and accepted into the master > branch. > > Is this change valuable without the refined patch? Or should I pull it until > I can > merge both?
It does have value as it stands. It fixes some upgrade cases I was seeing which was forcing me to run opkg with "--force-overwrite" set. The refined patch removes last and lastb from util-linux if someone does not want it there; good to do but not as critical as fixing a package management issue. So in my opinion it'd be worth merging the proposed patch into fido. If there is something more that I need to do to get my updated patch to master? Thanks, Bryan > > Thanks, > > Joshua -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
