Re: [PATCHv3 13/14] Upgraded to libvirt 1.0.0, and added a more detailed packageconfig

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 15:53 +0100, David Nyström wrote:
> > Another random questions. I've got some other libvirt recipes kicking
> > around, and
> > is it generally frowned upon to trigger options via DISTRO_FEATURES vs
> > PACKAGECONFIG ? I'm thinking of bigger scale features like selinux, which
> > are
> > decided on a distro basis.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bruce
> 
> Thats a good question, CC:ing RP who added the feature in 1.3.
> 
> Don't know whats generally frowned upon by the community, I see 
> PACKAGECONFIG as a more fine granular way of doing this.
> Alot of packages in oe-core do a R/DEPENDS split with:
> 
> DEPENDS += ${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', 'virtual/libx11 
> libxtst libice libsm libxcb gtk+', '', d)}"
> 
> I see no reason for why DISTRO_FEATURES can't select a PACKAGECONFIG 
> setup instead. I'm guessing that's why it was added. i.e.
> 
> PACKAGECONFIG += ${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'kvm', 'qemu yajl', 
> '', d)}"

Its ok to select PACKAGECONFIG based on DISTRO_FEATURES and some recipes
do this already in OE-Core. Lets try and keep a relatively trim set of
things we do at the DISTRO_FEATURE level though (and we should better
document the options available).

I'm a big fan of having sensible defaults and only exposing choices that
have significant real world value.

Cheers,

Richard