From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:14:52 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] snort: fix build on sparc v8 In-Reply-To: References: <20180510111748.26293-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> <20180513214550.529cba8c@windsurf.home> <20180515144128.602fea19@windsurf> Message-ID: <20180515171452.78b8d170@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Tue, 15 May 2018 16:59:41 +0200, Fabrice Fontaine wrote: > > OK, that explains the Git-formatted patches, without any obvious > > upstream Git repository available online. > > So, do you want to reformat my patch? What is the best practice, should we > always send git formatted patch even if there is no official Git > repository? The only clear policy that I'm trying to enforce is "if the project uses Git as its version control system, then we want Git-formatted patches". If on the other hand the projects is not using Git, then we don't have a clear policy, and so far we have been accepting patches that are not Git-formatted in such a case. The snort situation caught my eye because your patch was not Git-formatted, but the existing patches were. > > OK, too bad. Is snort unmaintained ? Is upstream focused on this snort3 > > project ? > > > Actually snort is most widely used than snort3. snort3 is still in alpha. I > have a patch for snort3 package but snort and snort3 don't use the same > version of daq library :-/ We could have a separate snort3 package, and a separate package for the daq library as well. If the daq libraries are API incompatible, it makes sense to have two separate packages for them. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com