On 12/16/2020 8:20 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: >> I do something very similar in my bbappend now. On the other hand, we >> have an upstream first principle in the company. I would rather try to >> find an upstream friendly solution that works for everybody without >> breaking existing users before falling back to bbappend route that I >> need to maintain forever. > Well, the problem as I see it is that some of these changes are pretty > invasive to the recipes. And when most seem fine with them as they are > (based on the fact that there has not been any push to split any of > them before AFAIK), the value of these changes are questionable, given > that more complicated recipes increase the maintenance burden. >
The counter argument is that a user should not be required to rework a recipe in bbappend for common tools that everybody uses the same way. If I was doing something special for my target, it has no business in upstream recipe. Requesting to have the ip tool out of iproute2 package is a no-brainer IMO and should be supported by default. I can also go ahead and say that ip tool probably is the most important tool in this package and is actually disappointing to see that it has not been brought out either by PACKAGECONFIG or PACKAGE options. I honestly don't care about the rest of the tools in that package. At the end of the day, there is room for improvement in the recipe. Whether we can do it safely or not is for reviewers to help here.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#145797): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/145797 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/79007326/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
