From: Pat <pat...@gm...> - 2017-04-17 11:51:55
|
A question for the "Devs": Would it be "better" to have separate patches for each issue: - Handling alternative package names and the libpng variations - Open Scene Graph version change - qtdeclarative5-dev needed for Qt-enabled builds Or one patch bringing the script "up to date" - Prerequisite qtdeclarative5-dev , Alternative package names & libpng alternatives, OSG 3.4 -Pat |
From: Florent R. <f.r...@fr...> - 2017-04-17 12:53:40
|
Pat <pat...@gm...> wrote: > Would it be "better" to have separate patches for each issue: > > - Handling alternative package names and the libpng variations > - Open Scene Graph version change > - qtdeclarative5-dev needed for Qt-enabled builds > > Or one patch bringing the script "up to date" > > - Prerequisite qtdeclarative5-dev , Alternative package names & > libpng alternatives, OSG 3.4 Personally, I don't mind much here if you file merge requests (the patch being of reasonable size). If you stay with patches, I think that in a case like this one, a single patch is a bit easier to manage, but it's not a big deal! Regards -- Florent |