Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 16 Aug 2023 21:25:20 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        python@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 273122] lang/python311: backport netlink support
Message-ID:  <bug-273122-21822-2RZqeobGRg@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-273122-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-273122-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D273122

--- Comment #6 from Charlie Li <vishwin@freebsd.org> ---
(In reply to Mina Gali=C4=87 from comment #4)
It's not a mystery if you comment the URL of the upstream issue in the
${PATCHFILES} line. The commit also lists the original issue. If you are th=
at
worried, create some backport issues upstream but immediately close them, t=
hat
way the commits stay even after any branch deletion.

(In reply to Joseph Mingrone from comment #5)
They do work by using the "ghost" commits.

(In reply to Joseph Mingrone from comment #5)
${PATCH_SITES}/${PATCHFILES} are applied before ${PATCHDIR} so the order
matters. Since what was accepted upstream, then backported, touches files t=
hat
${PATCHDIR} does, ${PATCHDIR} patches need to be regenerated. And since this
was accepted upstream, even just in trunk, they tacitly recommended that we
carry it ourselves for the backports, so ${PATCH_SITES}/${PATCHFILES} they =
go.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-273122-21822-2RZqeobGRg>