[OE-core] [PATCH 00/70] Proposed changes for fido

[Bryan Evenson]

Joshua,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Lock [mailto:joshua.lock at collabora.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:08 AM
> To: Bryan Evenson
> Cc: openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 00/70] Proposed changes for fido
> 
> Hi Bryan,
> 
> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 12:40 +0000, Bryan Evenson wrote:
> > > Bryan Evenson (1):
> > >   util-linux: Add lastb to alternatives
> >
> > There is a refined version of this patch available that was submitted
> > to the mailing list here:
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015
> > -April/104132.html.  It uses PACKAGECONFIG to remove last, lastb and
> > the man pages for last and lastb from the util-linux build if 'last'
> > is not in PACKAGECONFIG.  It also adds 'last' to PACKAGECONFIG by
> > default which mimics previous behavior.  I'm still a little unclear on
> > the patch approval process, so I assume the updated patch would need
> > to be accepted into master before being backported into fido?
> 
> Unless the patch is specific to the stable branch we only pull in changes into a
> stable branch once they have been reviewed and accepted into the master
> branch.
> 
> Is this change valuable without the refined patch? Or should I pull it until I can
> merge both?

It does have value as it stands.  It fixes some upgrade cases I was seeing which was forcing me to run opkg with "--force-overwrite" set.  The refined patch removes last and lastb from util-linux if someone does not want it there; good to do but not as critical as fixing a package management issue.  So in my opinion it'd be worth merging the proposed patch into fido.

If there is something more that I need to do to get my updated patch to master?

Thanks,
Bryan

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joshua