On 09.12.21 14:45, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 22:59 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <a...@linutronix.de>
---
.../0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch | 3 ++-
...p.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch
b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch
index e6172ef5aa..5b8fb70639 100644
---
a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch
+++
b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch
@@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ Subject: [PATCH] buckets/ssl_buckets.c: do not use ERR_GET_FUNC
Upstream removed it in
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16004
-Upstream-Status: Pending
+Upstream is defunct: last release in 2015, last commit in 2019.
+Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [no upstream]
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <a...@linutronix.de>
---
buckets/ssl_buckets.c | 3 +--
diff --git
a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch
b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch
index 91640d6044..cf00dbf5ac 100644
---
a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch
+++
b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch
@@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ ERROR: scons install execution failed.
and the installed paths (including the paths inside libserf*.pc)
look correct
-Upstream-Status: Pending
+Upstream is defunct: last release in 2015, last commit in 2019
+Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [no upstream]
Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com>
I'm still not convinced this is the right thing to do. I appreciate what the
docs say but I also think we may need to evolve.
Let's imagine we do have an "Inactive-Upstream" status for a minute and this
patch changes to:
Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream [last release 2015, last commit 2019]
If you now happen to be changing the recipe due to a new release, this is going
to trigger some kind of thought/action by seeing that status in that we might
now be able to upstream the patches. If it just says "Inappropriate", it won't
trigger the response we'd like.
We're also going to eventually end up with a whole pile of "Inappropriate"
patches, it may be useful to keep an open mind on whether any subdivision of
those would be helpful.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
It would makes sense, but then the support and the docs has to
backported again, otherwise cherry-picking won't be easy for older
releases. But yeah I'm with you that Inappropriate looks odd in this
context - still this is stated in the docs, we always refer to, so a doc
update needs to come in first IMO
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#159449):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/159449
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87599630/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
