[Re: [oe] [meta-networking, meta-oe][PATCH 0/9] Move networking recipes to meta-networking] On 13.04.29 (Mon 20:45) Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:01:14PM -0400, Joe MacDonald wrote: > > [Re: [oe] [meta-networking, meta-oe][PATCH 0/9] Move networking recipes to > > meta-networking] On 13.04.16 (Tue 14:22) Paul Eggleton wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 16 April 2013 13:30:29 Koen Kooi wrote: > > > > Op 16 apr. 2013, om 13:19 heeft Paul Eggleton > > > <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > > > > > On Tuesday 16 April 2013 13:09:46 Koen Kooi wrote: > > > > >> These look good to me, but > > > > >> > > > > >>> iw: move to meta-networking and update > > > > >> > > > > >> This is receferenced by a packagegroup in meta-oe: > > > > >> meta-oe/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-basic.bb: > > > > >> ${@base_contains("DISTRO_FEATURES", "wifi", "iw wpa-supplicant", "", > > > > >> d)} > > > > >> \ > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> With the 'meta-oe shall only depend on oe-core' rule, > > > > > > > > > > Are you sure nothing in meta-oe depends on anything in other layers > > > > > within > > > > > meta-openembedded already? > > > > > > > > I can't say for certain, but Martin and I have been very strict about > > > > it in > > > > the past. If there are such external dependencies they should be looked > > > > at > > > > and fixed. > > > > > > At some point I don't think this is going to be realistic - what happens > > > if > > > you have something in meta-oe that's too generic to be put elsewhere and > > > yet > > > has a dependency on something in meta-multimedia or meta-networking? It > > > will > > > come up at some point fairly soon. > > > > > > I can drop the iw patch from this set for the sake of the rest of the > > > patches > > > if you object to moving it, but we do need to do something about this in > > > the > > > near future. > > > > I'm way behind on my meta-networking stuff but finally getting caught up > > and I was wondering if we had run this one to ground. Martin's already > > merged in most of the other moves and I'm also fine with relocating iw, > > I hope you don't mind I did merge them. I never merge changes which are > only for layers with dedicated maintainer, but with this move > overlapping both layers I took them as nice cleanup. Not at all! I appreciated you picking them up for me. > > but I can see the argument in favour of keeping it in meta-oe. For now > > I'm also planning on merging a couple that didn't get picked up already: > > > > f501ecadb6 strongswan: move to meta-networking > > cdf2bf5654 vsftpd: move from meta-oe to meta-networking and tweak > > > > I'll also pick up the iw one if there's a consensus that moving it is > > the right thing (or not a terrible thing) to do. > > I think the consensus is that iw needs to stay where it is unless stuff > which references it is also moved or changed (that's why I haven't > merged this one). Sure, that makes sense. We'll leave iw where it is, then, and if it really makes sense to relocate it into meta-networking in the future, we'll take a wider view. Thanks. -- -Joe MacDonald. :wq
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
