[PATCH] base-passwd: fix patchreview warning

[PATCH] base-passwd: fix patchreview warning

[alexandre.belloni]

From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>

Fix:

Malformed Upstream-Status 'Upstream status' (meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch)
Unknown Upstream-Status value 'says' (meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch)

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
---
 .../base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch          | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch b/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
index 00eaec38a294..d77122789d5e 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 We need to have a wheel group which has some system privileges to consult the
 systemd journal or manage printers with cups.
 
-Upstream status says the group does not exist by default.
+Upstream says the group does not exist by default.
 
 Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [enable feature]
 
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] base-passwd: fix patchreview warning

[Alexander Kanavin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2033 bytes --]

Should the regex that finds these lines be fixed rather? It’s entirely
valid to say ‘upstream status’ somewhere, it should be matching
‘Upstream-Status:’ at the start of the line exactly.

Alex

On Sun 18. Jun 2023 at 23.26, Alexandre Belloni via lists.openembedded.org
<alexandre.belloni=bootlin.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:

> From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
>
> Fix:
>
> Malformed Upstream-Status 'Upstream status'
> (meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch)
> Unknown Upstream-Status value 'says'
> (meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch)
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  .../base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch          | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
> a/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
> b/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
> index 00eaec38a294..d77122789d5e 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  We need to have a wheel group which has some system privileges to consult
> the
>  systemd journal or manage printers with cups.
>
> -Upstream status says the group does not exist by default.
> +Upstream says the group does not exist by default.
>
>  Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [enable feature]
>
> --
> 2.40.1
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#183064):
> https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/183064
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/99611534/1686489
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [
> alex.kanavin@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3155 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] base-passwd: fix patchreview warning

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2023-06-19 at 15:18 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> Should the regex that finds these lines be fixed rather? It’s
> entirely valid to say ‘upstream status’ somewhere, it should be
> matching ‘Upstream-Status:’ at the start of the line exactly.

The check is deliberately doing fuzzy matching to spot "broken" lines.
Whether we need that any more now we have other checks for correct
lines is probably a better question...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] base-passwd: fix patchreview warning

[Alexandre Belloni]

On 19/06/2023 14:27:04+0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-06-19 at 15:18 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > Should the regex that finds these lines be fixed rather? It’s
> > entirely valid to say ‘upstream status’ somewhere, it should be
> > matching ‘Upstream-Status:’ at the start of the line exactly.
> 
> The check is deliberately doing fuzzy matching to spot "broken" lines.
> Whether we need that any more now we have other checks for correct
> lines is probably a better question...
> 

Yeah, this was my assumption that doing fuzzy matching was expected.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com