Re: [meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-ppc denzil] cryptodev kernel module recipe
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. -- 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
Re: [meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-ppc denzil] cryptodev kernel module recipe
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
Re: [meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-ppc denzil] cryptodev kernel module recipe
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br wrote: 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 ... I'm just saying that the change you requested requires convincing upstream to accept a change and might require lots of other bits to be changed not limited to other build systems and/or documentation. I don't think that onus should be placed on a recipe author. That being said, I think what you suggested is probably the right thing to do but sometimes other priorities will come first ;) -M ___ meta-freescale mailing list meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
