On Sunday 12 May 2013 19:54:50 Phil Blundell wrote: > On Sun, 2013-05-12 at 08:40 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > > On 05/12/2013 06:27 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > I think so, it'd be good to have it in oe-core and allow use of vpn :) > > > > I would like to see what the full dependency set looks like for these, > > clearly there is the vpnc, openvpn, l2tp and pptp recipes, but what else > > and what licenses are they under. > > I don't think we necessarily want openvpn, l2tpd and suchlike in > oe-core. None of those things seem very "core" to me (in an embedded > context) and testing them seems like it would be a bit of a challenge.
I agree, these don't belong in OE-Core. We already have them in meta- networking. > Equally, we certainly don't want to have dependencies in oe-core > pointing to packages in meta-oe or any other layer, since this would > make it impossible to test oe-core in isolation. So I would be inclined > to say that the right way to deal with this is for those connman bits to > go in a .bbappend which lives in the same layer as the recipes in > question. That doesn't work well for software layers - it is not a good thing for various recipes to get rebuilt just because you add meta-oe to your configuration for example. The protocol we've established is to add PACKAGECONFIG options to enable the dependencies but have them disabled by default; these can be enabled as desired in distro or local configuration when the layer satisfying the dependency is also enabled. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
