From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail9.tpgi.com.au (mail9.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.104]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796CF71801 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:39:34 +0000 (UTC) X-TPG-Junk-Status: Message not scanned X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed X-TPG-Abuse: host=60-242-171-118.static.tpgi.com.au; ip=60.242.171.118; date=Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:39:34 +1100 Received: from gw.urbanec.net (60-242-171-118.static.tpgi.com.au [60.242.171.118]) by mail9.tpgi.com.au (envelope-from openembedded-devel@urbanec.net) (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s9FGdWD1021399 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:39:34 +1100 Received: from beep.urbanec.net ([192.168.42.2]) by gw.urbanec.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XeRbm-0004m0-T7 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:39:30 +1100 Message-ID: <543EA342.40003@urbanec.net> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:39:30 +1100 From: Peter Urbanec User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OE Core References: <543E5F54.9090907@urbanec.net> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] opkg: Call prerm and postrm scripts on package upgrade. 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, 15 Oct 2014 16:39:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 16/10/14 00:17, Paul Barker wrote: > > This is still missing "Upstream-status:" ... >> + } >> + + static int > > I don't think the patch has been generated properly here. There > shouldn't be a change to this line. Patch resent. I moved the Upstream-status: from the header of the patch, into the header of the embedded patch. I hope I got it right! As far as the patch corruption is concerned, that's Thunderbird 31 being helpful, even though I asked it not to interfere. I resent the patch using a webmail client, which seems to have done a better job. Cheers, Peter