This is in accordance with the gatesgarth Release Notes:
> In the ``Upstream-Status`` header convention for patches,
> ``Accepted`` has | been replaced with ``Backport`` as these almost
> always mean the same thing i.e. the patch is already upstream and
> may need to be removed in a future recipe upgrade. If you are adding
> these headers to your own patches then use Backport to indicate that
> the patch has been sent upstream.
<https://docs.yoctoproject.org/migration-guides/migration-3.2.html#miscellaneous-changes>
Suggested-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
(From yocto-docs rev: 61813da94595a6e57c5fb5015229d601a558f299)
Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
It was never really clear what all those reasons really meant, and every
patch submitted upstream liftens the maintenance on the Yocto side.
So remove the current list, and replace it with two reasons in which an
upstream submission likely won't benefit the upstream project.
Suggested-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com>
(From yocto-docs rev: 7e630fdb98e1a28abb09c8f24c90ada0a4a1b9f3)
Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
This was previously included in the OpenEmbedded wiki page [1], but was
not ported along with the rest in commit 95c9a1e1e78bbfb82ade
(2023-09-12, Michael Opdenacker: "contributor-guide: recipe-style-guide:
add Upstream-Status").
[1]: https://www.openembedded.org/index.php?title=Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines&oldid=10935
Group the examples in their own sections (but name it differently from
any other section in this document so that sphinx doesn't generate a
warning about duplicate labels).
(From yocto-docs rev: 3022caa35efc28d16dea81bc81ecb48998c8f3b8)
Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Whilst often referred to as packages by people we should use the more
accurate term in documentation, 'recipe' instead of 'packages'.
(From yocto-docs rev: 058de5ad48ab76c4d54391f1701c3082842e8794)
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
They were coming from obsolete notes from the times
when people directly created or modified .pc files
from their recipes. Nobody should be doing that
any more and keep this can be confusing.
(From yocto-docs rev: 6b3bbf9507ac7014e95926d69383b585c5e19371)
Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
