From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail13.tpgi.com.au (mail13.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.181]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2368C6AD05 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:34:28 +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 09:34:27 +1100 Received: from gw.urbanec.net (60-242-171-118.static.tpgi.com.au [60.242.171.118]) by mail13.tpgi.com.au (envelope-from openembedded-devel@urbanec.net) (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s9FMYPWe016949; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:34:27 +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 1XeX9D-0005PG-Mi; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:34:23 +1100 Message-ID: <543EF66F.7070809@urbanec.net> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:34:23 +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: Paul Barker References: <543ea179.e25bb40a.2c8a.1e34SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: OE Core Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] 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 22:34:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 16/10/14 04:26, Paul Barker wrote: > For the sake of future readers within OpenEmbedded, we need to make > clearer here that this is opkg issue 104, not an OE issue number. This > change isn't needed in the patch to opkg upstream though. > >> + >> +Signed-off-by: Peter Urbanec > > Sorry to be pedantic but there's now 2 copies of the Signed-off-by > line. If you resend this, I'd also bring the Upstream-status line down > so that it immediately follows the Signed-off-by line. That's just a > minor cosmetic point though, it may be possible for someone to make > these edits as the patch is merged. I resent the patch with your suggestions incorporated. Specifically, I mentioned that the patch is for an opkg issue and provided the URL to the relevant opkg issue tracker entry. I also rearranged the Upstream-Status and Signed-off-by lines as suggested. > This looks fine. As I've said in reply to the patch on the opkg-devel > mailing list, I'm busy this week but should have time to test this > properly next week. It looks correct to me though, the logic is almost > identical to the patch I prepared which covers prerm only. > > It probably doesn't need to wait for my test before going into OE though. Thanks. Version 3 of the patch I sent out has no code changes, just the patch meta information and comments. Cheers, Peter