On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 21:13 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:54:11AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 19:18 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > During development of kernel integration support using CONFIG_BACKPORT > > > was evaluated as a prefix over CPTCFG even for packaging backports, > > > for some reason this change lifted some restrictions one some device > > > drivers which was present before and as such requires some changes to > > > the dependencies map file to ensure correct compilation for respective > > > kernel versions. > > > > This is confusing ... I think what you're trying to say is that you > > noticed it because your integration system was broken and not honouring > > restrictions properly? > > No I verified each reported case I got and verified the issues found > were valid. For some reason some of these drivers were not allowed to > compile on some older versions, and from what me and Hauke could tell > they should, but they weren't. So the new annotations on requirements > are valid. Right, ok, it's just a roundabout way of describing that you audited the dependencies and found some unnecessary ones :-) johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
