On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:23 AM Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@streamunlimited.com> wrote: > > Hi Khem, > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:26:27AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > > Just checked, we still override that script in our layer, so definitely > > > would be happy if this gets merged upstream so I can get rid of our > > > custom script downstream. > > > > > > > I think this is good to go got OE-core, but I was wondering if default > > script in busybox also need this and perhaps upstream too > > > > What do you mean by "default script"? > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/tree/meta/recipes-core/busybox/files/default.script > ?
yes. > > Upstream could benefit from it, I'd agree. Though, it is technically > just provided as an example. > https://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/examples/udhcp/simple.script > > The reason why I didn't bother to send a patch to busybox before pinging > on this patch was that we're already different from the upstream simple.script > so it didn't make sense to me to add the Upstream-Status: pending or > something on the patch (in some ways, since it's patching the file > directly and not adding a patch in SRC_URI). Anyway, digressing. Do you > want a patch to be sent to busybox ML (or PR or whatever they use) > before taking this patch? > I think the problem this patch fixes is generic and somewhere the script OE has is also derived from that example, so while the patch in itself is enough for OE, it would be better if it was in upstream too perhaps one less thing to worry about when we cherry pick changes from upstream script in future. > Quentin -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
