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

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 10:18 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com> wrote:
>> > On 7 January 2013 12:11, Marko Lindqvist <cazfi74 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 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]"?
>> >
>> > If you did it and then later discovered it's happened upstream
>> > independently, it's essentially a backport.
>
> The best thing is to consider how we use the information. I'd happily
> accept "Backport" in this case as meaning "the upstream latest version
> has equivalent functionality". You can note the status after the word to
> give specifics if needed.
>
>> Maybe it'd be better to not patch at all and update to the newer
>> recipe version?
>
> I don't think that is a reasonable policy in all cases. I'm not going to
> block automake on all upstreams making new releases for example.

Sure but if there're a new release with the fix it is better to
upgrade than backport the fix (with exceptions, of course).

My point is: it is good to verify if there're a new release and use it
if possible. Otherwise backport the fix.

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio at ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br