lzo: Add further info to a patch and mark as Inactive-Upstream

Add some further info to the patch based on upstream changes. Given the last release
in 2017 and glaring issues on at least armv5, it does raise the question on whether
we should drop this. There are probably better compression tools now.

Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>

diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/lzo/lzo/0001-Use-memcpy-instead-of-reinventing-it.patch b/meta/recipes-support/lzo/lzo/0001-Use-memcpy-instead-of-reinventing-it.patch
index db3a70e8031f7d4d185e10049dc25a02558423da..a0d2502d24d256cee6122a9a7a1e990594a37de4 100644 (file)
--- a/meta/recipes-support/lzo/lzo/0001-Use-memcpy-instead-of-reinventing-it.patch
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/lzo/lzo/0001-Use-memcpy-instead-of-reinventing-it.patch
@@ -10,7 +10,15 @@ Change suggested by Julian Taylor.
 
 Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757037
 
-Upstream-Status: Pending
+RP: Patch is still in debian as of 20220524 in a revised form:
+https://sources.debian.org/patches/lzo2/2.10-2/
+https://sources.debian.org/patches/lzo2/2.10-2/0001-Conditionally-replace-reinvention-of-memcpy-with-cal.patch/
+It was submitted in 2015, no reply to an email from RP in 2022 either.
+
+We likely need this in OE to prevent against unaligned accesses
+on systems such as armv5.
+
+Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream
 Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>
 ---
  minilzo/minilzo.c | 14 ++++++++++++++