From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Krause Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 13:20:52 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Patchwork cleanup, week #22 In-Reply-To: <20160615215258.5e9e85a6@free-electrons.com> References: <20160601232654.07800a9b@free-electrons.com> <20160615215258.5e9e85a6@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <1466940052.32055.17.camel@embedded.rocks> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Mi, 2016-06-15 at 21:52 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 23:26:54 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > > If there is no interest shown in a given patch, either by the > > original > > contributor or by another Buildroot developer within the two weeks > > time, I'll mark the patch as "Rejected" due to the lack of > > interest. > > I'm sending this e-mail on June 1st, so on June 15th, for the > > patches > > that have not seen any discussion or activity, I'll mark them as > > Rejected. > > We are on June 15th. > > > Here is the list of week #22 : > > > > ?1/ package/libgpg-error: bump to version 1.21 > > ????http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/562100/ > > > > ????I don't really have any comments, other than the fact that it > > is > > ????super annoying for a package with so many dependencies to start > > ????having architecture dependencies. Could someone refresh and > > ????validate this patch? > > I'm keeping this one around, since we really want to bump libgpg- > error > at some point. Sorry for not taking part in the discussion yet! I suggest to put some effort to find an upstreamable solution. As Yann has noted I did a proposal to remove the architecture dependency. However, I do not understand the concern of the maintainer about ABI compliance. There was no reaction to my last mail whereupon I stopped working on this issue for now. Anyone else interested in helping to solve this issue? Best regards J?rg Krause