Op 6 feb. 2012, om 20:37 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven: > On 06/02/12 10:58, Koen Kooi wrote: >> Op 6 feb. 2012 om 19:33 heeft Joshua Lock<[email protected]> het >> volgende geschreven: >>> On 04/02/12 08:07, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> Op 3 feb. 2012, om 18:15 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven: >>>>> On 02/02/2012 10:59 AM, Joshua Lock wrote: >>>>>> On 02/02/12 10:54, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Op 2 feb. 2012, om 19:51 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende >>>>>>> geschreven: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Several BSP's are appending netbase to add MACHINE specific >>>>>>>> networking functionality. Rather than BSP creators having to >>>>>>>> mark netbase MACHINE specific just default to PACKAGE_ARCH = >>>>>>>> "${MACHINE_ARCH}" in netbase. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This shouldn't be a huge hit as netbase just copies files >>>>>>>> around. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the past OE would mark things machine specific if something in >>>>>>> SRC_URI was fetched using overrides. So it this patches fixed >>>>>>> netbase the 'old' mechanism is broken :( >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch doesn't fix netbase, I just thought it would be simpler to >>>>>> make this change than ensure all BSP's use appropriate OVERRIDEs in >>>>>> their netbase bbappends - several I've seen don't. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there a consensus on whether or not this can go in? I need either >>>>> this or the BSP layer fix for a new BSP. It seems to me that netbase is >>>>> overridden enough for machine specific things (like the interface file) >>>>> that Joshua's approach is the better fix. >>>> >>>> It all depends on how much crap in BSPs you want to fix up in OE-core. >>>> Where are you going to draw the line? >>> >>> I understand you don't like this change but I don't really understand why? >>> >>> My intention with the patch is to make it easier for folks to produce BSP's >>> which don't introduce bugs into other builds for the same architecture. >> >> You're not making it easier, you're just fixing up bugs in the BSP in >> oe-core. So where do you draw > the line on that? > > Thanks for persisting. > > As I understand your argument: BSP developers still need to understand the > intricacies involved as soon as they make a similar change to a non-netbase > recipe? > > I can't and won't disagree with that. > > I could argue that, in the specific case of netbase, it's reasonable to > expect the resultant package file to be MACHINE specific. For example, I > wouldn't expect to take the network configuration from my laptop, copy it to > my workstation and for it to all work.
On the subject of networking, there's some overlap between the network management on oe-core/meta-oe. The current options: * ifupdown (/etc/network/interfaces) * connman (ignores /etc/network/interfaces) * network manager (has a plugin to stay away from interfaces listed in /etc/network/interfaces) I think we should have a look at how those 3 intergrate into the images we build. There is no cabal, but some face time at ELC would likely help :) regards, Koen _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
