Re: [Buildroot] Indicating upstream status [was: [PATCH] package/bluez5_utils: Fix builds with musl-libc]

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 3/29/2023 2:28 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:06:47 +0200
> Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
> 
>>    Yeah, that's why I propose "Upstream:" - it's generic enough to cover all of
>> these cases. The contents can be freeform I think, check-package should just
>> check that the Upstream tag is present. And the documentation should give
>> examples of the five cases you mention.
> 
> Sure.

Yocto uses the following format [1]:

Upstream-status: 
(Pending|Submitted|Accepted|Backport|Denied|Inappropriate [reason])

would you want to adopt something similar? OpenWrt to some extent does 
something like that as well although in a less unified fashion, 
sometimes the patches are placed in a specific patch directory 
(backport-x.y.z, upstream-x.y.z) and sometimes that information is 
placed in the patch file itself.

[1]: 
http://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Best_Known_Methods_%28BKMs%29_for_Package_Updating#Patch_Comments

> 
>>    The "patch taken from downstream" is the only one which doesn't fit in the
>> "Upstream" thing. But it's also a situation we don't really like: we basically
>> don't want local patches, and a patch taken from some other distro _is_ a local
>> patch.
> 
> The reality is that we have such patches (for example to fix musl build
> issues), and we somehow have to live with them.
> 
> Thomas

-- 
Florian
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot