base-passwd: fix patchreview warning

From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>

Fix:

Malformed Upstream-Status 'Upstream status' (meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch)
Unknown Upstream-Status value 'says' (meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch)

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
---
 .../base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch          | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Should the regex that finds these lines be fixed rather? It’s entirely
valid to say ‘upstream status’ somewhere, it should be matching
‘Upstream-Status:’ at the start of the line exactly.

Alex

On Sun 18. Jun 2023 at 23.26, Alexandre Belloni via lists.openembedded.org
<alexandre.belloni=bootlin.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:

> From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
>
> Fix:
>
> Malformed Upstream-Status 'Upstream status'
> (meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch)
> Unknown Upstream-Status value 'says'
> (meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch)
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  .../base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch          | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
> a/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
> b/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
> index 00eaec38a294..d77122789d5e 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/base-passwd/base-passwd/0007-Add-wheel-group.patch
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  We need to have a wheel group which has some system privileges to consult
> the
>  systemd journal or manage printers with cups.
>
> -Upstream status says the group does not exist by default.
> +Upstream says the group does not exist by default.
>
>  Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [enable feature]
>
> --
> 2.40.1
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#183064):
> https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/183064
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/99611534/1686489
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [
> alex.kanavin@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>

On Mon, 2023-06-19 at 15:18 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> Should the regex that finds these lines be fixed rather? It’s
> entirely valid to say ‘upstream status’ somewhere, it should be
> matching ‘Upstream-Status:’ at the start of the line exactly.

The check is deliberately doing fuzzy matching to spot "broken" lines.
Whether we need that any more now we have other checks for correct
lines is probably a better question...

Cheers,

Richard

On 19/06/2023 14:27:04+0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-06-19 at 15:18 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > Should the regex that finds these lines be fixed rather? It’s
> > entirely valid to say ‘upstream status’ somewhere, it should be
> > matching ‘Upstream-Status:’ at the start of the line exactly.
> 
> The check is deliberately doing fuzzy matching to spot "broken" lines.
> Whether we need that any more now we have other checks for correct
> lines is probably a better question...
> 

Yeah, this was my assumption that doing fuzzy matching was expected.