| 1 |
On 04 Feb 2016 13:40, Alex McWhirter wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/01/2016 05:03 PM, Alex McWhirter wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 02/01/2016 03:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> in cases like this, the preference would be to get any patches merged |
| 5 |
> >> upstream, and then add that to our ebuild. but if upstream won't pick |
| 6 |
> >> up a patch that'll help, just minimize the sed/patch hackary. generally |
| 7 |
> >> the whole point of doing a "clean" patch is to get it merged upstream. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Ok, ill shoot a pull request over to systemd, hopefully they will |
| 10 |
> > acknowledge the issue instead of insisting the only way to fix it is for |
| 11 |
> > gold to be fixed. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > anyways you're sed one-liner works perfectly on 225, so if we could get |
| 14 |
> > that pushed that should fix up standard catalyst builds without any |
| 15 |
> > custom tree hacks. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'd like to get the udev fix and a glibc fix pushed into the tree |
| 18 |
> because they aren't handled by the sparc team. What would be the best |
| 19 |
> way to go about this? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
you can file a bug for each issue and attach the patch and it'll get |
| 22 |
routed to the right person. you could just post the glibc one here |
| 23 |
and i'll review/merge it directly. |
| 24 |
-mike |
Archives