On 07/28/2013 11:34 PM, Iorga, Cristian wrote:
Back from the past!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Iorga, Cristian
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:51 AM
To: 'Saul Wold'; 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer'; Burton, Ross
Subject: RE: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5
Hi Saul, Ross,
I think that for the time being libasound-module-bluez should be
libasound-module-bluez5.
We will get back to it after 1.5, when all components will be ready for BlueZ 5.
This can not wait until after 1.5, it's a note and needs to be addressed
now. Martin has also reported this issue to you as well.
On the second issue, can you please go into details? I am not following exactly.
It's possible for new version of ofono or connman to want to use bluez5,
via the PACKAGECONFIG settings, we need to allow that to happen with out
having to embed bluez4 vs bluez5 in the recipe, this can be done with a
virtual/bluez style of declartion you can see examples of this for
virtual/libc and in the meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc file
Sau!
Regards,
Cristian
-----Original Message-----
From: Saul Wold [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:24 PM
To: 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer'; Iorga, Cristian; Burton,
Ross
Subject: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5
Cristi, Ross:
There is currently a PREFERRED_PROVIDER issue with bluez4 and bluez5 and I am
beginning to think we need to distinguish the libasound-module-bluez with
libasound-module-bluez5.
I am also seeing some areas where we might need a virtual/bluez to allow
recipes to enable features in places like connman and ofono
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
