From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.gw90.de ([188.40.100.199]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RQElm-0006fl-BL for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:53:30 +0100 Received: from f053032059.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.32.59] helo=[192.168.178.21]) by mail.gw90.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQEfg-0006BQ-2n for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:47:12 +0000 Message-ID: <1321346828.1013.23.camel@mattotaupa> From: Paul Menzel To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:47:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1321307338.26881.83.camel@ted> References: <2ffb85152b2b9356efeb008891d8ed29f1f35cef.1321296476.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <1321303197.26881.74.camel@ted> <22478035-0923-402B-8617-45F140D38288@dominion.thruhere.net> <1321307338.26881.83.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:53:30 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 12469 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-cXMEp6WW7pjuaT91Vs1E" --=-cXMEp6WW7pjuaT91Vs1E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Montag, den 14.11.2011, 21:48 +0000 schrieb Richard Purdie: > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > > Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > > >> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better= idea. > > >=20 > > > I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become = the > > > default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code, > > > parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate > > > recipes? > >=20 > > I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra > > buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS. > >=20 > The proposals for alternative recipes for the different combinations got > voted down and PACKAGECONFIG was the preferred solution. Where is this vote (and discussion) documented? I found nothing in the OE Wiki and searching for it with =C2=BBopenembedded packageconfig vote oe-core list=C2=AB brought up only some minutes [1]. I also do not remember anything on openembedded-devel where such general discussion definitely belong in my opinion. It would be great if somebody could help me by giving me an URL. > I can't say I personally like everything about the outcome. I do > however understand why we've ended up in that position and don't > intend to undermine the usefulness of it. [=E2=80=A6] Thanks, Paul [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/7688 --=-cXMEp6WW7pjuaT91Vs1E Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk7CJwwACgkQPX1aK2wOHVjX7gCeN+9bKsr/+wNC8KFcI5yt8pCY 7vAAoIahiTdgr24VUEQThDGQMbSsXnRJ =juvZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-cXMEp6WW7pjuaT91Vs1E--