Re: [meta-oe][meta-networking][PATCH V2 3/3] ntp: Clean up recipes

[Joe MacDonald <Joe.MacDonald@windriver.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1388 bytes --]

[Re: [oe] [meta-oe][meta-networking][PATCH V2 3/3] ntp: Clean up recipes] On 12.11.01 (Thu 06:50) Martin Ertsås wrote:

> On 11/01/12 02:08, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> >On Tuesday 23 October 2012 12:20:20 Morgan Little wrote:
> >>-PACKAGES += "ntpdate ${PN}-bin ${PN}-tickadj ${PN}-utils"
> >...
> >>+PACKAGES += "${PN}-date ${PN}-bin ${PN}-tickadj ${PN}-utils"
> >I'm not particularly happy with this change. Apart from the fact that it
> >wasn't mentioned in the commit message, it breaks any recipe that depends upon
> >the previous ntpdate package. Could we go back to the old ntpdate name for the
> >package or at the very least provide an RPROVIDES for the old name? I'm happy
> >to submit a patch to do this once there is agreement either way.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Paul
> >
> I agree with you. Also find it kind of strange to change from
> ntpdate to ntp-date, as the universally known name of that module is
> ntpdate. Don't really see the rational of changing that to ntp-date
> in the recipe.

Agreed.  Though if there's a good reason to rename in ntp-date, that's
fine with me, so long as we go with Paul's suggestion of having an
RPROVIDES for ntpdate.  It's probably best to leave it as ntpdate,
though.

-- 
Joe MacDonald, Sr. Member of Technical Staff, Linux Products Group, Wind River
direct 613.270.5750     mobile 613.291.7421     fax 613.592.2283

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]