util-linux: rename patches to follow the new name convention
PATCH 1/1 util-linux: rename patches to follow the new name convention
---
...{util-linux-001-sscanf-no-ms-as.patch => 001-sscanf-no-ms-as.patch} | 0
...cation-short-name.patch => 002-program-invocation-short-name.patch} | 0
...patch => 003-c.h-define-mkostemp-for-older-version-of-uClibc.patch} | 0
3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
rename package/util-linux/{util-linux-001-sscanf-no-ms-as.patch => 001-sscanf-no-ms-as.patch} (100%)
rename package/util-linux/{util-linux-002-program-invocation-short-name.patch => 002-program-invocation-short-name.patch} (100%)
rename package/util-linux/{util-linux-003-c.h-define-mkostemp-for-older-version-of-uClibc.patch => 003-c.h-define-mkostemp-for-older-version-of-uClibc.patch} (100%)package/util-linux/001-sscanf-no-ms-as.patch renamed from package/util-linux/util-linux-001-sscanf-no-ms-as.patch +0 -0
package/util-linux/002-program-invocation-short-name.patch renamed from package/util-linux/util-linux-002-program-invocation-short-name.patch +0 -0
package/util-linux/003-c.h-define-mkostemp-for-older-version-of-uClibc.patch renamed from package/util-linux/util-linux-003-c.h-define-mkostemp-for-older-version-of-uClibc.patch +0 -0
Signature · 1 line
1.7.10.4
PATCH 1/1 util-linux: rename patches to follow the new name convention
Dear Karoly Kasza,
the new name convention says the patches should be prefixes with a 4-digit number. So, 0001 instead of 001, etc.
Could you please fix that and resend your patch? Thanks.
Best regards,
Signature · 5 lines
Vicente Olivert Riera Graduate Software Engineer, MIPS Platforms Imagination Technologies Limited t: +44 (0)113 2429814 www.imgtec.com
PATCH 1/1 util-linux: rename patches to follow the new name convention
Hi,
Sorry, I missed it.
Wouldn't be better to do all packages in one run of "git mv"-s? I recall seeing some patch (possibly from Peter) doing that on the near past?
Quoted 19 lines · Vicente Olivert Riera
Dear Karoly Kasza,
the new name convention says the patches should be prefixes with a 4-digit number. So, 0001 instead of 001, etc.
Could you please fix that and resend your patch? Thanks.
Best regards,
--
Vicente Olivert Riera
Graduate Software Engineer, MIPS Platforms
Imagination Technologies Limited
t: +44 (0)113 2429814
www.imgtec.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Signature · 5 lines
?dv, KK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20141210/05333d41/attachment.html>
PATCH 1/1 util-linux: rename patches to follow the new name convention
Dear K?roly Kasza,
Quoted 1 line · K?roly Kasza
Wouldn't be better to do all packages in one run of "git mv"-s?
I'm not sure, because there are lots of patches in the patchwork queue which may be touch some package-patches, so if you send a patch to rename all package-patches for all buildroot packages, there could be lots of patches that couldn't be applied as they are. I think it's better to fix one package at a time, but that's only my opinion, I could be wrong.
Best regards,
Signature · 5 lines
Vicente Olivert Riera Graduate Software Engineer, MIPS Platforms Imagination Technologies Limited t: +44 (0)113 2429814 www.imgtec.com
PATCH 1/1 util-linux: rename patches to follow the new name convention
Vicente, All,
On 2014-12-10 15:26 +0000, Vicente Olivert Riera spake thusly:
Quoted 2 lines · K?roly Kasza
Quoted 1 line
Wouldn't be better to do all packages in one run of "git mv"-s?
Yes, there's a patch from Samuel doing that with a (Python!) script.
Quoted 6 lines
I'm not sure, because there are lots of patches in the patchwork queue which may be touch some package-patches, so if you send a patch to rename all package-patches for all buildroot packages, there could be lots of patches that couldn't be applied as they are. I think it's better to fix one package at a time, but that's only my opinion, I could be wrong.
Well, except if one really want to bust his number of commits, there is no reason to do so.
Yesterday during the Patchwork cleanup session, Peter agreed on using Samuel's script to rename all patches in one go.
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
Signature · 6 lines
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
PATCH 1/1 util-linux: rename patches to follow the new name convention
In reply to Karoly KaszaDear Karoly Kasza,
Quoted 7 lines · Karoly Kasza
Signed-off-by Karoly Kasza <[email protected]>--- ...{util-linux-001-sscanf-no-ms-as.patch => 001-sscanf-no-ms-as.patch} | 0 ...cation-short-name.patch => 002-program-invocation-short-name.patch} | 0 ...patch => 003-c.h-define-mkostemp-for-older-version-of-uClibc.patch} | 0 3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Thanks, but Gustavo also sent another similar patch, which included a fix for a CVE security issue, so I took Gustavo's patch instead.
Thanks!
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com