Op 15 nov. 2011, om 16:12 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 15:42 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: >> >>> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: >>>>> To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't >>>>> use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We >>>>> should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than >>>>> that where is the problem other than a general objection to >>>>> PACKAGECONFIG? >>>> >>>> It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist. >>> >>> There are multiple ways of coexisting and the configuration changing >>> based on DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't force a choice either. >> >> It does force a choice, since you don't want to change DISTRO_FEATURES >> when distributing binaries. If changing it is safe, then it isn't a >> DISTRO_FEATURE. > > I'd expect a given distro to be able to figure out in advance whether it > intends to have X11 or not? > > If unsure you leave it present... > > I really don't see the problem here.
The patch here doesn't use 'x11', but 'gui' as PACKAGECONFIG. Triggering on x11 is fine in this case. regards, Koen
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
