On 16 October 2014 04:27, Huang, Jie (Jackie) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----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) >
With just vim-tiny installed, the user should still be able to run 'vim' to start the program. We could make that an update-alternatives link, but then we'd have to rename the executable for vim proper and use update-alternatives there as well. I'd rather see both packages use the 'vim' executable name and set CONFLICTS/RCONFLICTS appropriately, unless there is a good reason a user would want both 'vim' and 'vim-tiny' installed together. >> > >> >> 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. I think this is a wider issue that may affect packages other than vim. I seem to recall the question of whether PACKAGECONFIG values can be set per image recipe being asked previously. Is it possible to write a vim-tiny recipe without splitting vim.inc from vim_*.bb? Can vim-tiny just 'require vim_7.4.373.bb' and change PACKAGECONFIG and the do_install function? > >> >> 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 > Cheers, -- Paul Barker Email: [email protected] http://www.paulbarker.me.uk -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
