Op 1 apr. 2013, om 23:03 heeft Joe MacDonald <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] python-m2crypto: add 0.21.1] > On 13.04.01 (Mon 22:33) Koen Kooi wrote: > >> >> Op 1 apr. 2013, om 20:21 heeft Joe MacDonald <[email protected]> >> het volgende geschreven: >> >>> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] python-m2crypto: add >>> 0.21.1] On 13.04.01 (Mon 20:15) Koen Kooi wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Op 1 apr. 2013, om 20:13 heeft Joe MacDonald <[email protected]> >>>> het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>>> Hey Koen, >>>>> >>>>> [[oe] [meta-networking][meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] python-m2crypto: add 0.21.1] >>>>> On 13.03.29 (Fri 15:25) Koen Kooi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <[email protected]> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> ...y-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch | 39 >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> .../python/python-m2crypto_0.21.1.bb | 19 +++++++++++ >>>>>> 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+) >>>>>> create mode 100644 >>>>>> meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto/0001-setup.py-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch >>>>>> create mode 100644 >>>>>> meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto_0.21.1.bb >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git >>>>>> a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto/0001-setup.py-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch >>>>>> >>>>>> b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto/0001-setup.py-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch >>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>> index 0000000..bcbdf24 >>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>> +++ >>>>>> b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto/0001-setup.py-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ >>>>>> +From f11b9c71080513f9b867ba8f40613ba2ebc6e960 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>>>> +From: Koen Kooi <[email protected]> >>>>>> +Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:17:17 +0100 >>>>>> +Subject: [PATCH] setup.py: link in sysroot, not in host directories >>>>>> + >>>>>> +Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <[email protected]> >>>>>> + >>>>>> +Upstream-status: Unknown >>>>> >>>>> Does this mean you haven't determined if it should be sent upstream yet, >>>>> or you did and it's gone off into an apparent black hole of a mailing >>>>> list somewhere? >>>> >>>> The former >>> >>> Okay. Isn't that normally 'Pending' then? I can make that tweak in my >>> merge, but I wanted to confirm I had the right information there first. >> >> If you think 'Pending' reflects the status better than 'Unknown', go for it, >> but 'Pending' has been the catch-all for Upstream-status fields, so anytime >> you see 'Pending' you know you can't trust the Upstream-status field. > > Yeah, certainly no argument here, 'Pending' implies something to me that > simply isn't so based both on experience and the strict definition on > the website. But that does seem to fit the definition reasonably well. > > So since the meta-networking bit depends on the meta-oe bit being > merged, do you want me to merge both at the same time? Or if you would > prefer to do the merge, I'm happy with the meta-networking piece of > this, so feel free. Feel free to merge both _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
