From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viallard Anthony Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:02:52 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/5] gnuplot : new package In-Reply-To: <20130107144800.29eb11ca@skate> References: <1357565417-16782-1-git-send-email-viallard@syscom-instruments.com> <20130107144800.29eb11ca@skate> Message-ID: <50EAF1AC.8090907@syscom-instruments.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 07. 01. 13 14:48, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > 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 Indeed, Sorry, i knew my post is not very sexy. This is because my git repository is very dirty and i don't known how clean my work. I thoughwith lucky, my submit will be accepted :) Ok, i do the changes ! avd.