From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: wanting to clarify patch mechanics
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 06:28:56 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1207070623560.17992@oneiric> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120707101549.GI3708@jama.jama.net>
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 06:04:07AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > speaking of apply, it would seem that "apply=yes" is redundant, is
> > that correct? there are a couple dozen examples of that throughout
> > oe-core, mostly in the bash recipe file. is there anything subtle
> > about that parameter, or is it truly superfluous?
>
> apply=yes is default for *.patch and .diff, for files with other
> extension it's still needed (e.g. those entries in bash)
ah, that's useful to know, thanks.
> so there is only a few redundant usages in oe-core:
> meta/recipes-connectivity/portmap/portmap.inc: file://make.patch;apply=yes"
> meta/recipes-core/eggdbus/eggdbus_0.6.bb: file://gtk-doc.patch;apply=yes \
> meta/recipes-core/eggdbus/eggdbus_0.6.bb: file://marshal.patch;apply=yes \
> meta/recipes-graphics/libxsettings-client/libxsettings-client_0.10.bb: file://link-x11.patch;apply=yes \
> meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-proto/calibrateproto_git.bb: file://fix.patch;apply=yes"
> meta/recipes-sato/leafpad/leafpad_0.8.18.1.bb:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://owl-menu.patch;apply=yes "
> meta/recipes-sato/pimlico/contacts.inc:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://contacts-owl-window-menu.patch;apply=yes "
> meta/recipes-sato/pimlico/dates.inc:SRC_URI_append_poky = " file://dates-owl-window-menu.patch;apply=yes "
> meta/recipes-sato/settings-daemon/settings-daemon_git.bb: file://addsoundkeys.patch;apply=yes \
> meta/recipes-support/libcroco/libcroco_0.6.3.bb:SRC_URI_append = " file://croco.patch;apply=yes \
>
> some devs cleanup those when doing upgrades.. if it bothers you enough
> you can send patch removing those...
it didn't really bother me so much as i just wanted to make sure it
didn't represent something subtle that changed the expected behaviour,
and your earlier explanation clarified that. i might send a patch
along later. thanks for the clarification.
today's going to be a very oe-oriented day so expect more nitpicking
pedantry.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-07 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-07 10:04 wanting to clarify patch mechanics Robert P. J. Day
2012-07-07 10:15 ` Martin Jansa
2012-07-07 10:28 ` Robert P. J. Day [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.02.1207070623560.17992@oneiric \
--to=rpjday@crashcourse.ca \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox