Re: [PATCH] libpcap: Fix build when PACKAGECONFIG ipv6 is not enable

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 09:24 -0700, Christopher Larson wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Fabio Berton
> <fabio.berton@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>         No, I created a patch, git format-patch and then edit
>         generated files with Upstream-Status tag and added to recipe.
>         Is this wrong?
> 
> As I indicated in my first reply, it’s best to put the tag outside the
> generated patch (above it, or below the —-), as it isn’t part of the
> commit, only part of the patch file.

Now I'm confused. My understanding was that
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations explicitly asks for Upstream-Status in the patch header.

Taking an existing example, is
http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/tree/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0001-core-device.c-Change-the-default-device-timeout-to-2.patch doing it wrong?

>  It’s minor, and you don’t need to re-submit, but in general the tag
> is not part of the commit message. For example, if your patch was
> applied to a git repository with git-am, it’d be in the commit
> message, which should not be the case.

Yes, that's indeed the effect. That has pros (the Upstream-Status tag is
preserved when working with devtool) and cons (patch as attached to a
recipe is not the same as the patch upstream).

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.