[oe] [meta-networking][meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] python-m2crypto: add 0.21.1

[Koen Kooi]

Op 1 apr. 2013, om 23:03 heeft Joe MacDonald <Joe.MacDonald at windriver.com> het volgende geschreven:

> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] python-m2crypto: add 0.21.1] On 13.04.01 (Mon 22:33) Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Op 1 apr. 2013, om 20:21 heeft Joe MacDonald <Joe.MacDonald at windriver.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] python-m2crypto: add 0.21.1] On 13.04.01 (Mon 20:15) Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Op 1 apr. 2013, om 20:13 heeft Joe MacDonald <Joe.MacDonald at windriver.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hey Koen,
>>>>> 
>>>>> [[oe] [meta-networking][meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] python-m2crypto: add 0.21.1] On 13.03.29 (Fri 15:25) Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> ...y-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> .../python/python-m2crypto_0.21.1.bb               | 19 +++++++++++
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
>>>>>> create mode 100644 meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto/0001-setup.py-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch
>>>>>> create mode 100644 meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto_0.21.1.bb
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto/0001-setup.py-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto/0001-setup.py-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..bcbdf24
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-m2crypto/0001-setup.py-link-in-sysroot-not-in-host-directories.patch
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>>>>>> +From f11b9c71080513f9b867ba8f40613ba2ebc6e960 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>> +From: Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net>
>>>>>> +Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:17:17 +0100
>>>>>> +Subject: [PATCH] setup.py: link in sysroot, not in host directories
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +Upstream-status: Unknown
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does this mean you haven't determined if it should be sent upstream yet,
>>>>> or you did and it's gone off into an apparent black hole of a mailing
>>>>> list somewhere?
>>>> 
>>>> The former
>>> 
>>> Okay.  Isn't that normally 'Pending' then?  I can make that tweak in my
>>> merge, but I wanted to confirm I had the right information there first.
>> 
>> If you think 'Pending' reflects the status better than 'Unknown', go for it, but 'Pending' has been the catch-all for Upstream-status fields, so anytime you see 'Pending' you know you can't trust the Upstream-status field. 
> 
> Yeah, certainly no argument here, 'Pending' implies something to me that
> simply isn't so based both on experience and the strict definition on
> the website.  But that does seem to fit the definition reasonably well.
> 
> So since the meta-networking bit depends on the meta-oe bit being
> merged, do you want me to merge both at the same time?  Or if you would
> prefer to do the merge, I'm happy with the meta-networking piece of
> this, so feel free.

Feel free to merge both