> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:openembedded-devel- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Barker > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:45 AM > To: OE Devel > Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] vim: add recipe for vim-tiny > > On 15 October 2014 11:38, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 05:53:31AM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > >> From: Jackie Huang <[email protected]> > >> > >> Changes: > >> - split the vim recipe to two files > >> - add bb for vim-tiny based on PACKAGECONFIG defined in .inc file > >> - use trim_version to get VIMDIR > > > > If you really want to revert following 2 patches, then you need to
Sorry that I didn't notice the 2 patches in the commit history. > > provide more justifications for your patch and also confirm that the > > recipes don't stage conflicting files in sysroot anymore (I don't see > > any change in recipe preventing that). In vim-tiny, there are only two files installed: the binary and the rc file, and they are renamed to avoid the confliction: $ find . -type f ./bin/vim-tiny (it's vim in vim package) ./usr/share/vim/virc (it's vimrc in vim package) > > > > Agreed. There may be a use for having both vim and vim-tiny in a package > feed, but I think we need a We have been using like this for a long time and it works fine when both vim and vim-tiny are installed. > better way of handling it than this. I don't insist on this way and will be happy if there is a better way to handle this. We usually define what need to be installed in different packagegroups and images, for smaller image, we need vim-tiny, some others need vim, I know we can change PACKAGECONFIG to get different vims, but it doesn't work in packagegroup or image. And it seems more clear to user/customer if we use name like vim-tiny, gvim/vim-gui, or user may complain that vim is not fully featured when they see vim is installed but actually it is the one with tiny feature. > > This patch is difficult to fully review as it mixes conceptually different > changes together. If this or > something similar does go in after further discussion, it needs to be split > up. Yeah, sorry for that, I will split it up if needed after further discussion here. Thanks, Jackie > > Thanks > > -- > Paul Barker > > Email: [email protected] > http://www.paulbarker.me.uk > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
