On Thursday 28 November 2013 11:49:18 Koen Kooi wrote: > Paul Eggleton schreef op 28-11-13 11:32: > > Hi Koen / Felipe, > > > > On Thursday 28 November 2013 10:22:31 Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Felipe F. Tonello schreef op 28-11-13 01:56: > >>> From: "Felipe F. Tonello" <[email protected]> This recipe supports > >>> the backend for packagekit dynamically based on the IMAGE_PKGTYPE. > >> > >> NAK! IMAGE_FEATURES should *never* change non-image recipe params. > >> This breaks using feeds horribly. > > > > IMAGE_PKGTYPE is influenced by PACKAGE_CLASSES; so this is not about > > IMAGE_FEATURES, and correct me if I'm wrong but maintaining package feeds > > > > would generally preclude switching to an alternative package manager, > > > > right? > > No, it's perfectly possible to build both opkg and rpm, which is what I'm > currently doing. When doing that the DISTRO.conf does need to make a > decision on what to support for things like packagekit. > > > Some options: > > > > 1) Apply the patch as-is. Changing the order/value of PACKAGE_CLASSES > > will mean this and anything that depends upon it will rebuild. > > > > 2) Install the appropriate backend via some code in the image recipe. > > Obviously this means you have to do this for every image recipe though. > > > > 3) Use non-dynamic PACKAGECONFIG. Of course this means you'll have to > > remember to change this manually if you change PACKAGE_CLASSES or it'll > > just be broken at runtime. > > > > Honestly, option 1 sounds like the best course to me here. This is rather > > a special case compared to other recipes. > > 1) will let you end up with packagekit_1.0.ipk that only supports RPM
Correct, it would. I agree that's not ideal. Neither is having it broken by default for some people though (unless you just set all backends to on by default, that is.) > 2) Is what we would really want, but I don't think packagekit supports that > :( This patch looks like it is splitting out the backends into separate packages... > So that leaves 3, which makes it a clear DISTRO decision, like it should be. It's worth pointing out that the patch sets PACKAGECONFIG with ??= so it doesn't stop you from doing this. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
