| Message ID | 20211204071323.2480163-26-alex@linutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/26] insane.bbclass: do not hardcode oe-core path in upstream-status check | expand |
> -----Original Message----- > From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded- > core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Kanavin > Sent: den 4 december 2021 08:13 > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > Cc: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> > Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH 26/26] serf: mark patches as inappropriate for > upstream submission > > With this commit I am entering the patch nirvana (and I intend to stay > there): > > ~/development/poky$ grep -ilr "upstream-status: pending" `grep -ilr kanavin meta*`|wc -l > 0 Even though we appreciate your work, I think the two paragraphs above belong after the --- below, as they don't have anything to do with the actual change in this commit. //Peter > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> > --- > .../0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch | 2 +- > ...op.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do- > not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets- > ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch > index e6172ef5aa..73e8a8386b 100644 > --- a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not- > use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch > +++ b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not- > use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Subject: [PATCH] buckets/ssl_buckets.c: do not use > ERR_GET_FUNC > Upstream removed it in > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16004 > > -Upstream-Status: Pending > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [last release in 2015, last commit in > 2019] > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> > --- > buckets/ssl_buckets.c | 3 +-- > diff --git a/meta/recipes- > support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox- > install.prefix.patch b/meta/recipes- > support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox- > install.prefix.patch > index 91640d6044..ba1b01c740 100644 > --- a/meta/recipes- > support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox- > install.prefix.patch > +++ b/meta/recipes- > support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox- > install.prefix.patch > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ ERROR: scons install execution failed. > and the installed paths (including the paths inside libserf*.pc) > look correct > > -Upstream-Status: Pending > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [last release in 2015, last commit in > 2019] > > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> > > -- > 2.20.1
On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 07:13, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> wrote: > -Upstream-Status: Pending > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [last release in 2015, last commit in 2019] If someone picked up Serf maintainership tomorrow, would these patches be suitable upstream? If so, then they're not Inappropriate. Ross
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 11:25, Ross Burton <ross@burtonini.com> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 07:13, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> > wrote: > > -Upstream-Status: Pending > > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [last release in 2015, last commit in > 2019] > > If someone picked up Serf maintainership tomorrow, would these patches > be suitable upstream? If so, then they're not Inappropriate. > Presumably, that someone would start updating the repo and making releases, at which point we can reevaluate the situation with the patches. As of today, they are inappropriate. Alex
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 11:03, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Presumably, that someone would start updating the repo and making releases, at which point we can reevaluate the situation with the patches. As of today, they are inappropriate.
But how, in two years time, would we know to re-evaluate the patches
if they're marked as inappropriate for upstream?
They're not inappropriate for upstream, we just can't submit them to a
meaningful upstream. There's a big difference.
Ross
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 15:08, Ross Burton <ross@burtonini.com> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 11:03, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Presumably, that someone would start updating the repo and making > releases, at which point we can reevaluate the situation with the patches. > As of today, they are inappropriate. > > But how, in two years time, would we know to re-evaluate the patches > if they're marked as inappropriate for upstream? > We should properly, clearly document the reason why they're inappropriate for upstream right now, just above the upstream-status line which is a summary. If there is a new release in the future, at that point any upgrade activity should re-evaluate all existing patches for the old version anyway, even if they're inappropriate, or submitted or anything else - too much time would have passed by then. Alex
I mean, if you insisit, we can add Upstream-Status: Defunct, but I do not think keeping patches in Pending state when there is no upstream is right either. Alex On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 16:45, Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org <alex.kanavin=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 15:08, Ross Burton <ross@burtonini.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 11:03, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Presumably, that someone would start updating the repo and making >> releases, at which point we can reevaluate the situation with the patches. >> As of today, they are inappropriate. >> >> But how, in two years time, would we know to re-evaluate the patches >> if they're marked as inappropriate for upstream? >> > > We should properly, clearly document the reason why they're inappropriate > for upstream right now, just above the upstream-status line which is a > summary. If there is a new release in the future, at that point any upgrade > activity should re-evaluate all existing patches for the old version > anyway, even if they're inappropriate, or submitted or anything else - too > much time would have passed by then. > > Alex > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#159249): > https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/159249 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87494788/1686489 > Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [ > alex.kanavin@gmail.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >
On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 16:50 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > I mean, if you insisit, we can add Upstream-Status: Defunct, but I do not > think keeping patches in Pending state when there is no upstream is right > either. Maybe we should add an Upstream-Inactive status? Cheers, Richard
To quote the documentation:
Inappropriate [reason]
- The patch is not appropriate for upstream, include a brief reason
on the
same line enclosed with []
reason can be:
...
no upstream (the upstream is no longer available -- dead project)
so I think this is already covered, but I think we need to enforce the
usage of machine readable reasoning within the square brackets.
And if we need a more fine grained classification here, I would suggest
to add a new item at Inappropriate
On 06.12.21 17:41, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 16:50 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
>> I mean, if you insisit, we can add Upstream-Status: Defunct, but I do not
>> think keeping patches in Pending state when there is no upstream is right
>> either.
>
> Maybe we should add an Upstream-Inactive status?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#159256): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/159256
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87494788/3647476
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [kweihmann@outlook.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
Thanks - since there's already documented nomenclature for this situation, I tweaked the patch to simply use that. Alex On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 17:47, Konrad Weihmann <kweihmann@outlook.com> wrote: > To quote the documentation: > > Inappropriate [reason] > - The patch is not appropriate for upstream, include a brief reason > on the > same line enclosed with [] > reason can be: > ... > no upstream (the upstream is no longer available -- dead project) > > so I think this is already covered, but I think we need to enforce the > usage of machine readable reasoning within the square brackets. > > And if we need a more fine grained classification here, I would suggest > to add a new item at Inappropriate > > On 06.12.21 17:41, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 16:50 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > >> I mean, if you insisit, we can add Upstream-Status: Defunct, but I do > not > >> think keeping patches in Pending state when there is no upstream is > right > >> either. > > > > Maybe we should add an Upstream-Inactive status? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#159256): > https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/159256 > > Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87494788/3647476 > > Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [ > kweihmann@outlook.com] > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > >
diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch index e6172ef5aa..73e8a8386b 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch +++ b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Subject: [PATCH] buckets/ssl_buckets.c: do not use ERR_GET_FUNC Upstream removed it in https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16004 -Upstream-Status: Pending +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [last release in 2015, last commit in 2019] Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> --- buckets/ssl_buckets.c | 3 +-- diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch index 91640d6044..ba1b01c740 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch +++ b/meta/recipes-support/serf/serf/SConstruct.stop.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ ERROR: scons install execution failed. and the installed paths (including the paths inside libserf*.pc) look correct -Upstream-Status: Pending +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [last release in 2015, last commit in 2019] Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com>
With this commit I am entering the patch nirvana (and I intend to stay there): ~/development/poky$ grep -ilr "upstream-status: pending" `grep -ilr kanavin meta*`|wc -l 0 Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de> --- .../0001-buckets-ssl_buckets.c-do-not-use-ERR_GET_FUNC.patch | 2 +- ...op.creating.directories.without.sandbox-install.prefix.patch | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)