On 7 January 2013 13:59, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 01:49 +0200, Marko Lindqvist wrote: >> Add obsolete-automake-macros.patch that replaces automake macros >> no longer supported by automake-1.13 with modern constructs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> >> --- >> .../file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch | 15 >> +++++++++++++++ >> meta/recipes-devtools/file/file_5.11.bb | 3 ++- >> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> create mode 100644 >> meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch >> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch >> b/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..8b0d34c >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch >> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ >> +Upstream-Status: Fixed in file-5.12 > > Can we use a standard syntax for this, something like: > > Upstream-Status: Backport (fixed in file-5.12) > > (as mentioned in > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Contribution_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations)
What's the correct status for fixes that are not really backports, but have happened independently in oe and upstream? - If practically identical, still mark as "Backport"? - If different solution, "Inappropriate [not needed]"? - ML _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core