[Re: Yocto security responses.] On 17.10.16 (Mon 00:49) Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Joe MacDonald <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Not to be brusque about it, but I've said all I intend to say on that > patch and I've regularly marked it rejected in patchwork, but it keeps > getting pulled back into the 'master-next' state, I assume by a script > of some sort, so dnsmasq continues to be something that warrants special > attention, because I know I manually have to tell my own automated > processes to ignore it. :-/ > > > Thanks for merge to master, the meta-networking patches are usually in > master-next until they are merged. > > I just do the rebase regularly and if they are still there after rebase I > sometimes don't dig in ML or patchwork status to find out if they are still in > review (and should stay in master-next) or already definitely refused and I > should drop them while rebasing. > > Currently there are 4 pending meta-networking changes: > pick 6302b49 dnsmasq: disable the service by default > pick 45559fa openconnect: fix parallel compilation failure > pick aac7e9d squid: upgrade to 3.5.27 > pick ff5e841 libmnl: Move to oe-core > (and my WIP spice changes which I haven't sent to ML yet). > > I'll drop the first now as discussed in this thread (even when https:// > patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/137644/ is still marked in patchwork as > "Master Next" not "Rejected"). > > I'll drop the 2nd as well based on the discussion in https://patchwork. > openembedded.org/patch/143205/ > > The 3rd one is for some reason marked as Changes Requested, but doesn't > include > any ML discussion in https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/143406/ Weird, I can't find my reply on the mailing list either. Attached here so maybe it'll get archived this time. Short version, I wanted confirmation on the behaviour with gcc7 and the patch that was being removed and if we were going to see a v2 on this, I'd rather not have the unnecessary whitespace reformatting in the next version. > and the last one should imho be merged, because in last batch you've > merged: b8210dd iproute2: Move tipc enablement to oe-core which > already depends on libmnl in oe-core. I plan to do that today, there's another issue that I thought needed quick turnaround on it, but it seems not. Since I'm here, though, I'll take care of b8210dd. -- -Joe MacDonald. :wq
squid.mbox
Description: application/mbox
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
