[OE-core] [PATCH v2 04/15] file: replace obsolete automake macros with working ones

[Marko Lindqvist]

On 7 January 2013 13:59, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 01:49 +0200, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>> Add obsolete-automake-macros.patch that replaces automake macros
>> no longer supported by automake-1.13 with modern constructs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marko Lindqvist <cazfi74 at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  .../file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch            |   15 +++++++++++++++
>>  meta/recipes-devtools/file/file_5.11.bb                 |    3 ++-
>>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..8b0d34c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/file/file/obsolete_automake_macros.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
>> +Upstream-Status: Fixed in file-5.12
>
> Can we use a standard syntax for this, something like:
>
> Upstream-Status: Backport (fixed in file-5.12)
>
> (as mentioned in
> https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Contribution_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations)

  What's the correct status for fixes that are not really backports,
but have happened independently in oe and upstream?
 - If practically identical, still mark as "Backport"?
 - If different solution, "Inappropriate [not needed]"?


 - ML