linux/poky.git/meta/recipes-extended, branch uninative-1.8Mirror of git.yoctoproject.org/pokyhttps://git.enea.com/cgit/linux/poky.git/atom?h=uninative-1.82018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00iptables: drop unnecessary patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Alexander Kanavinalexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:51+00:00urn:sha1:e49ac3eabba388444f83f96f068ed7c95f8a80be
These were adding definitions for the second time
(see bug #10450 for why) or adding an include that isn't anymore
necessary for musl builds.
(From OE-Core rev: bed5ea53c74c4b444b2145e7a83ca9fd44ea30ec)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
tcp-wrappers: refresh patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Ross Burtonross.burton@intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:50+00:00urn:sha1:72d33a8bd58fd5e58eff0cf8110db1a20c8bd4e2
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
(From OE-Core rev: 33f90716bc9890492cc04c4abfe5506f5555d06a)
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
parted: refresh patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Ross Burtonross.burton@intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:49+00:00urn:sha1:17ba4f4f6afa50aa2f3305eb76333158807e05d4
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
(From OE-Core rev: fa3180007502affabbe57cb6366be18fbb9e94f8)
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
libpam: refresh patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Ross Burtonross.burton@intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:48+00:00urn:sha1:b65741860f311fd6d0a0dbfd0633837ba1b6f3b0
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
(From OE-Core rev: 994e43acc67efeb33d859be071609daa844e9b77)
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
mdadm: refresh patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Ross Burtonross.burton@intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:47+00:00urn:sha1:12190f1779aa5df4e227628139aad60d7b8b9de7
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
(From OE-Core rev: 3c3f76677759156b8cd87659fb4fefb46eb87d13)
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
libidn: refresh patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Ross Burtonross.burton@intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:46+00:00urn:sha1:712b3c172e9373b127a70cce01619a4293c0f321
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
(From OE-Core rev: 8d4e250383f08e3cd53db809d718910048b9021b)
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
ghostscript: drop incorrectly applied patch2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Alexander Kanavinalexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:45+00:00urn:sha1:f749fd990c7f91799780369b0ecb80366e8ab418
The patch was adding a change to the source file that was already there,
so the lines of code were repeated twice. This didn't create a bug or a
security issue, but it may well have.
Long story:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10450
(From OE-Core rev: 1fc1a5f392ec6773cd520cbbd19b58931c6a2d66)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
ghostscript: refresh patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Ross Burtonross.burton@intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:44+00:00urn:sha1:4fb2ba48f2ebaf9060bdd7ada8ab257c9b150603
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
(From OE-Core rev: 49437de120ffdf26396fb295254f51ccc204560a)
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
ethtool: refresh patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Ross Burtonross.burton@intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:43+00:00urn:sha1:1de8b49c69c01938cc1b6fd92b03654df0266d63
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
(From OE-Core rev: 4ff1dbbd33b31212e8ba2bb9f269c80b5f08566c)
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
bash: refresh patches2018-03-09T17:17:03+00:00Ross Burtonross.burton@intel.com2018-03-08T18:17:42+00:00urn:sha1:3dc8a2bef3eec4614678a3de9c6546d23393f64b
The patch tool will apply patches by default with "fuzz", which is where if the
hunk context isn't present but what is there is close enough, it will force the
patch in.
Whilst this is useful when there's just whitespace changes, when applied to
source it is possible for a patch applied with fuzz to produce broken code which
still compiles (see #10450). This is obviously bad.
We'd like to eventually have do_patch() rejecting any fuzz on these grounds. For
that to be realistic the existing patches with fuzz need to be rebased and
reviewed.
(From OE-Core rev: 33dadb98c10fdf04d9ed9b6ba57de6257873bcea)
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>