-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Eggleton schreef op 28-11-13 11:58: > 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...
If that's the case, 2) is the route to go. > >> 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSlyLtMkyGM64RGpERAmfuAJ9DTZhTFkAQ7AwRYQbSVzHGyRCtigCeLU92 psvh/e2iCRGJLTUfAWzoF5I= =vIts -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
