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: 1386 bytes --]

[Re: [oe] [meta-oe][meta-networking][PATCH V2 3/3] ntp: Clean up recipes] On 12.11.01 (Thu 17:19) Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Thursday 01 November 2012 17:09:59 Little, Morgan wrote:
> > My rational behind splitting like that is if it is just ntpdate and you try
> > to add ntp-ssl and ntpdate it will use ntp to provide ntpdate. It could be
> > change add RPROVIDES so ntp will provide ntpdate and ntp-ssl provides a
> > uniquely named version.
> 
> The ssl version could be ntpdate-ssl if it needs to be unique. I think 
> originally though these recipes weren't intended to be built side-by-side - 
> rather they were mutually exclusive and the distro would make a choice as to 
> which one was built.

Hmm, good point.

Does it make sense to have both on a system?  That is, if you build
ntp-ssl does that imply it will only use SSL for communications?  If
that's not the case (which I suspect it isn't, but I haven't checked
myself) then there's not really a strong reason to install both on the
same system.  Which then seems fine to provide ntpdate-ssl as the
alternative.

Now that I think about it a bit more, maybe a RPROVIDES is appropriate
since ntp and ntpdate are overlapping in a lot of places.

-- 
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 --]