From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta1.brinkster.com ([65.182.109.70]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NZ7Jw-0001nG-NR for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:36:28 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.brinkster.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB4B380A86 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:26:49 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at Received: from mta1.brinkster.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta1.brinkster.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sb7hduyVKMns for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:26:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from MareImbrium (unknown [82.46.19.72]) by mta1.brinkster.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0F3380C67 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:26:43 -0500 (EST) From: "John Willis" To: References: <201001241235.23795.holger+oe@freyther.de> <4B5C6D35.1030002@nospam.arcornews.de> In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:26:33 -0000 Message-ID: <01a901ca9d22$c508d620$4f1a8260$@Willis@Distant-earth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-index: AcqdE2xGF5U/v4fURM6UR2mF5d0t5AADwAzw X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 65.182.109.70 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: John.Willis@Distant-earth.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: Request to revert latest devicekit patch X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:36:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-us Rolf, Replying to your mail on-list. As the author of said patch if people want it reverted go ahead. It has my ACK. > Koen Kooi wrote: > > On 24-01-10 12:35, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote: > >> Can anyone ack the revert please? > > > > The commit says: > > > > Note: Another (maybe better) fix would be to package up docbook-xsl > but > > that is overkill for these two recipes. > > To introduce something new that patch breaks something for somebody > else > that was previously working. I thought it was commonly accepted that > it's then the author's (and possibly the committer's) responsibility to > come up with something better to fix this regression. > > > Wouldn't that be a better option than introducing a regression? > > The regression was introduced with the patch. Not by reverting it. > > A revert gets my ACK if this bothers Holger enough in his workflow. I > would suggest Holger and David-John should talk about a time-frame in > which David-John can cook up a proper patch. Based on this information > a decision should be made if a revert is necessary in the meantime or > not. I trust Holger's judgment here. > > > PS: David-John, the whole discussion is at > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded/29524 As I stated in the original patch the correct fix is to sort out the docbook-xsl packages but that was not something I had any intention at the time to tackle (limited OE dev time and a seemingly infinite TODO list). I may be able to look at it in the near future but as for being the best man for the job, that I am not so sure about. The sole reason for the patch was to fix a build failure on systems where the host system docbook-xsl stuff was not available (or desired). Reverting the -nonet will reintroduce dependencies on components being installed on the host system outside OE but if that is fine then go for the revert. I understood (at the time, this is back in October) that depending on host items outside oe's -native was a 'very bad thing' (tm) ;). Maybe worse than requiring an internet connection but I am not the person to judge that. I'll leave it to core OE devs to decide what is the lesser of 2 evils in this case. Regards, John