Hi Otavio, I see there's a new version to look at but this is the thread where the discussion is happening that I want to continue, so here we go. :-)
[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] lldpd: Add recipe] On 15.09.15 (Tue 17:33) Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello Joe, > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Joe MacDonald <joe_macdon...@mentor.com> > wrote: > > [[oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] lldpd: Add recipe] On 15.09.15 (Tue 14:54) > > Fabio Berton wrote: > > > >> From: Fabio Berton <fabio.ber...@ossystems.com.br> > >> > >> lldpd is a 802.1AB implementation, a L2 network discovery protocol. > >> It also supports CDP, EDP and various other protocols. > > > > I haven't looked at this in great detail yet, but it appears like it > > would provide the same functionality as lldpad, already in > > meta-networking: > > > > commit 6781f9b5dc60bbd39727aeaa74c13dd31eb73838 > > Author: Qian Lei <qianl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Date: Thu Dec 11 17:36:20 2014 +0800 > > > > lldpad: Add new recipe > > > > LLDPAD contains the Linux user space daemon and configuration tool for > > Intel LLDP Agent with Enhanced Ethernet support for the Data Center. > > > > Signed-off-by: Qian Lei <qianl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> > > > > I've no objection to carrying two different implementations, > > particularly if one is more complete than the other or if one is more > > actively developed, but I do have a couple of requests for you given > > that you're the second one on the scene. > > It seems the lldpd is way more actively maintained. We have a customer > using this in an environment with some thousands of network devices > with great success and we wished to upstream the recipe and avoid > maintaining a closed recipe for no reason. I'm good with that. Coming from a carrier background I know that frequent updates does not necessarily mean more stable, but actively developed with real-world users is convincing enough for me to merge this. > > - Can you update your recipe (and the other, if necessary) to provide > > an appropriate PROVIDES / CONFLICTS variable? > > I am not sure we should. Being two alternatives nothing blocks someone > to install both. I thought about that, but the question in my mind is does it make sense to install both? If they both tried to start up at boot via initscripts/systemd, would they conflict with each other or do they manage that gracefully? I really don't know. > To be honest, maybe this one could replace the old one for > meta-network future users, if Qian Lei agrees. I'd really like that, if it turns out lldpad is a reasonable subset of lldpd functionality. Either way I'll take a look at the latest patch set and if there's anything specific in there I have to comment on, I will, otherwise we'll give everyone else on the list a bit of time to respond and then make a call about the specifics of merging this. -- -Joe MacDonald. :wq
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel