| Message ID | 20211117153525.257146-2-alex@linutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/36] ovmf: submit patch upstream | expand |
On Wed, 2021-11-17 at 16:34 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> > --- > meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch b/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch > index 46065bc513..34fca1eb2f 100644 > --- a/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch > +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ In file included from TOPDIR/build/tmp/work/aarch64-yoe-linux-musl/groff/1.22.4- > We delete eqn.cpp and qen.hpp in do_configure > to ensure they're regenerated and deterministic. > > -Upstream-Status: Pending > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [issue fixed upstream with a similar patch] > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > --- > src/libs/libgroff/assert.cpp | 4 + Should we replace this with the upstream patch? That way we'd have a clean backport which would help at upgrade time? Is the upstream patch exactly functionally equivalent? Sometimes it can be good to test the upstream version so we know come upgrade time we're ok and we don't need to ask upstream to make any further tweaks. Cheers, Richard
This is the upstream fix: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=979f3f4266151c7681a68a40d2c4913842a7271d I can backport that, rebase the existing patch on top and see what's left, sure. Alex On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 12:15, Richard Purdie < richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2021-11-17 at 16:34 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> > > --- > > meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git > a/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch > b/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch > > index 46065bc513..34fca1eb2f 100644 > > --- a/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch > > +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch > > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ In file included from > TOPDIR/build/tmp/work/aarch64-yoe-linux-musl/groff/1.22.4- > > We delete eqn.cpp and qen.hpp in do_configure > > to ensure they're regenerated and deterministic. > > > > -Upstream-Status: Pending > > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [issue fixed upstream with a similar > patch] > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> > > --- > > src/libs/libgroff/assert.cpp | 4 + > > > Should we replace this with the upstream patch? That way we'd have a clean > backport which would help at upgrade time? > > Is the upstream patch exactly functionally equivalent? > > Sometimes it can be good to test the upstream version so we know come > upgrade > time we're ok and we don't need to ask upstream to make any further tweaks. >
I checked; the patches are the same, except the upstream one misses one file, which is fixed in a different upstream patch. I'd say we can keep things as they are. Alex On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 12:34, Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org <alex.kanavin=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote: > This is the upstream fix: > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=979f3f4266151c7681a68a40d2c4913842a7271d > > I can backport that, rebase the existing patch on top and see what's left, > sure. > > Alex > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 12:15, Richard Purdie < > richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2021-11-17 at 16:34 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> >> > --- >> > meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git >> a/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch >> b/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch >> > index 46065bc513..34fca1eb2f 100644 >> > --- a/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch >> > +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch >> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ In file included from >> TOPDIR/build/tmp/work/aarch64-yoe-linux-musl/groff/1.22.4- >> > We delete eqn.cpp and qen.hpp in do_configure >> > to ensure they're regenerated and deterministic. >> > >> > -Upstream-Status: Pending >> > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [issue fixed upstream with a similar >> patch] >> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> >> > --- >> > src/libs/libgroff/assert.cpp | 4 + >> >> >> Should we replace this with the upstream patch? That way we'd have a clean >> backport which would help at upgrade time? >> >> Is the upstream patch exactly functionally equivalent? >> >> Sometimes it can be good to test the upstream version so we know come >> upgrade >> time we're ok and we don't need to ask upstream to make any further >> tweaks. >> > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#158506): > https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/158506 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87121973/1686489 > Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [ > alex.kanavin@gmail.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >
On Fri, 2021-11-19 at 13:08 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > I checked; the patches are the same, except the upstream one misses one file, > which is fixed in a different upstream patch. I'd say we can keep things as > they are. Can we mark as a backport of those two commits then? Cheers, Richard
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 13:29, Richard Purdie < richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2021-11-19 at 13:08 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > I checked; the patches are the same, except the upstream one misses one > file, > > which is fixed in a different upstream patch. I'd say we can keep things > as > > they are. > > Can we mark as a backport of those two commits then? > Right, I will add the upstream references to the patch. Alex
diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch b/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch index 46065bc513..34fca1eb2f 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ In file included from TOPDIR/build/tmp/work/aarch64-yoe-linux-musl/groff/1.22.4- We delete eqn.cpp and qen.hpp in do_configure to ensure they're regenerated and deterministic. -Upstream-Status: Pending +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [issue fixed upstream with a similar patch] Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> --- src/libs/libgroff/assert.cpp | 4 +
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> --- meta/recipes-extended/groff/files/0001-Include-config.h.patch | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)