From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-68.nebula.fi ([83.145.220.68]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OiUVj-0007js-0J for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:43:35 +0200 Received: from [100.100.100.68] (unknown [83.150.95.26]) by smtp-68.nebula.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDA543F048D for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:43:23 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C602232.8030806@dcombus.com> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:43:46 +0300 From: Henri Bragge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <1281353772-30862-1-git-send-email-henri.bragge@dcombus.com> <1281354725.3767.25.camel@mattotaupa> <4C5FEF0B.2070600@dcombus.com> <1281357382.3767.28.camel@mattotaupa> In-Reply-To: <1281357382.3767.28.camel@mattotaupa> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 83.145.220.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henri.bragge@dcombus.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gsnmp-0.3.0: fix quoting in autoconf macros X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:43:35 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul Menzel wrote: > Am Montag, den 09.08.2010, 15:05 +0300 schrieb Henri Bragge: > >> Paul Menzel wrote: >> >>> Is there an upstream bug for this? If not, it would be great if you >>> could sent it upstream. >>> >> The bug is still present in upstream too, but I will send this patch to >> the gsnmp maintainer if it does the trick (or should it be the other way >> around?). >> > > I have no idea [1]. But I guess it would not hurt if you send it > upstream anyway. > > [1] http://wiki.openembedded.net/index.php/Push_patches_upstream > Got it accepted, included some upstream info in the patch (see v3). - Henri