On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 16:24 +0000, Paul Barker wrote: > 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.
Having a python RDEPENDS means that will turn into python-native and that is a pretty heavy dependency in its own right :( Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
