From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:48:00 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/5] gnuplot : new package In-Reply-To: <1357565417-16782-1-git-send-email-viallard@syscom-instruments.com> References: <1357565417-16782-1-git-send-email-viallard@syscom-instruments.com> Message-ID: <20130107144800.29eb11ca@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Anthony Viallard, On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:30:13 +0100, Anthony Viallard wrote: > +GNUPLOT_INSTALL_TARGET = YES This line is not needed. Also, please make your 1/5, 2/5, 3/5 and the LICENSE part of 5/5 a single patch. And then, a second patch containing your 4/5 and and the part of 5/5 that disables the documentation and the demos. There has already been some discussion with Stefan about how to split patches, and it seems that it is still not clear. Each patch should be a logical change that works on its own. So for example, in the same series, putting a package in section "Foo", and then moving it to section "Bar" is very strange. Since you can rebase your patches, why don't you put the package in section "Bar" in the first place, so that we can believe you did everything perfectly from the very beginning? :-) You don't need to show to the whole world the gazillions of steps you followed to create a package. You need to show the whole world a nice, clean set of commits, where each commit is a logical change, that keeps the "buildability" of Buildroot. Does that make sense? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com