From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAAB86A59E for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:26:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6A1QHs5010999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.162.194] (128.224.162.194) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:26:15 -0700 Message-ID: <51DCB835.4070507@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:26:13 +0800 From: Hongxu Jia User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Eggleton References: <4535187.OqzhIf4Y4R@helios> <51DC1027.9030801@windriver.com> <1402577.4PhkADxV84@helios> In-Reply-To: <1402577.4PhkADxV84@helios> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] nss: add version 3.15.1 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:26:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Got it, I will check the one in meta-browser again to make sure everything is handled, and resend the patch. Thanks, Hongxu On 07/09/2013 09:38 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Tuesday 09 July 2013 21:29:11 Hongxu Jia wrote: >> 1, 3.15.1 is the newest version, and file structure has more change than >> previous version. >> >> 2, 3.13.3 just skip signing, and cheksum file doesn't be generated. >> >> 3, 3.13.3 doesn't completely fix incorrect shebang of perl (PATCH 5/5) >> >> 4, 3.13.3's package doesn't contain ${D}${bindir}/ and ${D}${sysconfdir} >> >> I think 3.15.1 is better. > The reason I ask is that if merged this will effectively replace the one in > meta-browser, so as long as it handles everything that the meta-browser recipe > does it should be OK. > > Cheers, > Paul >