| 1 |
On 02/04/2016 04:54 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04 Feb 2016 13:40, Alex McWhirter wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/01/2016 05:03 PM, Alex McWhirter wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 02/01/2016 03:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> in cases like this, the preference would be to get any patches merged |
| 6 |
>>>> upstream, and then add that to our ebuild. but if upstream won't pick |
| 7 |
>>>> up a patch that'll help, just minimize the sed/patch hackary. generally |
| 8 |
>>>> the whole point of doing a "clean" patch is to get it merged upstream. |
| 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 |
>> I'd like to get the udev fix and a glibc fix pushed into the tree |
| 17 |
>> because they aren't handled by the sparc team. What would be the best |
| 18 |
>> way to go about this? |
| 19 |
> you can file a bug for each issue and attach the patch and it'll get |
| 20 |
> routed to the right person. you could just post the glibc one here |
| 21 |
> and i'll review/merge it directly. |
| 22 |
> -mike |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Bug for glibc - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573872 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Bug for udev - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573874 |
Archives