From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HJKU5-0001Le-R1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:12:01 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HJKU4-0001Jm-4E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:12:01 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HJKU3-0001Jb-UA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:11:59 -0500 Received: from mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.4.196]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HJKU3-0002Bl-JK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:11:59 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.151] (ool-457143e1.dyn.optonline.net [69.113.67.225]) by mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JDQ00M0KORYEUG0@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:11:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:10:52 -0500 From: Christopher Olsen Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] FreeBSD Support In-reply-to: <200702200146.05003.paul@codesourcery.com> Message-id: <200702192110.52907.cwolsen@domainatlantic.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <200702161402.23660.cwolsen@domainatlantic.com> <200702192015.18981.cwolsen@domainatlantic.com> <200702200146.05003.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Monday 19 February 2007 20:46, Paul Brook wrote: > > This is a sidetrack here... But is it at all possible to make future > > releases of the source more FreeBSD friendly? > > If someone puts in the effort to make it so, yes. > > Note that dumping the current patches from FreeBSD ports on the list is > generally not sufficient. Blindly posting patches without explanation is a > good way to get them ignored. > > All patches should include a description of what they are fixing (ie. what > qemu currently does wrong), how the patch fixes it, and why this is the > right way to fix it. For OS specific hacks there needs to be a good reason > why that OS is special. > If you can't answer all the above questions then you shouldn't be > submitting the patch. In some cases you may need to rewriting the patches > to meet these criteria. Individual OS/Distros tend to be less picky because > they only care whether the result works on that one system. > > Paul > > > _______________________________________________ > Qemu-devel mailing list > Qemu-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel Paul, So should I make a separate patch for each modified file? -Christopher -- Christopher Olsen cwolsen@domainatlantic.com Tel: 631-676-4877 Fax: 631-249-3036