On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 <b29...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Otavio Salvador > <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 >> <b29...@freescale.com> wrote: >>>>> You made the same mistake reveiwing this Darren did... these are NOT >>>>> in our recipe they are in the projects Makefile that we don't control. >>>>> We are just patching up the Makefile a bit so it works properly and >>>>> don't want to redefine variables this project has been using. >>>>> >>>>> OTOH this patch needs an upstream-status and also needs to be sent >>>>> upstream. >>>> >>>> Yes I know it is inside of the project Makefile however you're >>>> patching it anyway so better to make it us the standards and send >>>> upstream. >>> >>> That's fine, but I would not let that hold up this patch if the author >>> did not want to pursue getting upstream to change such things. ;) >> >> This recipe is not target to meta-fsl-ppc, is it? It seems to fit >> meta-openembedded. > > Well, the maintainer there would have the final say, but I think > changing an upstream projects stuff should not effect it's acceptance > (into meta-oe or meta-fsl-ppc)
I am not in position to nack something for meta-fsl-ppc. In meta-oe I am in some areas but not in crypto packages; however meta-oe discussion is off-topic here. My intention to comment on the recipe was to help. I noticed something that had an alternative solution and seemed easy to improve it as it was going to add a patch for Makefile so change one or two lines wouldn't be a big deal ... -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale