On 18 November 2013 16:20, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:31:09PM +0000, Paul Barker wrote: >> On 18 November 2013 11:57, Richard Purdie >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Paul: Have you any opinion of moving update-alternatives to its own >> > repository separate from opkg? or just check it into OE-Core as its just >> > a single script? Its not as if it really needs much from opkg at this >> > point? >> >> I'd be quite happy to break it out into a separate repo. I think >> that's better than direct inclusion into oe-core so that it remains >> easily usable by non-oe systems. > > What about including it in opkg-utils repo? And maybe even providing u-a > by opkg-utils.bb? > > opkg-utils.bb doesn't have any DEPENDS (Only python RDEPENDS) so it > would be good compromise between opkg and completely new recipe. >
I think this is the most sensible option. If u-a is put into a separate package it shouldn't need any RDEPENDS either. I'll send in the patches I have for oe-core, they'll need a little more testing before they're ready to be pushed to the mainline though. -- Paul Barker Email: [email protected] http://www.paulbarker.me.uk _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
