[meta-oe][PATCH] dnsmasq: merge dnsmasq-dbus to main recipe

[meta-oe][PATCH] dnsmasq: merge dnsmasq-dbus to main recipe

[Martin Jansa]

* they conflict in sysroot anyway, should be converted to PACKAGECONFIG
  but because dbus is already built in most images I'll let it for someone
  who has such use-case

Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com>
---
 meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq-dbus_2.55.bb | 13 -------------
 meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq.inc          | 12 ++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq-dbus_2.55.bb b/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq-dbus_2.55.bb
index 896952d..e69de29 100644
--- a/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq-dbus_2.55.bb
+++ b/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq-dbus_2.55.bb
@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-# dnsmasq with support for DBus interface
-
-require dnsmasq_${PV}.bb
-
-S = "${WORKDIR}/dnsmasq-${PV}"
-
-DEPENDS = "dbus"
-EXTRA_OEMAKE = "COPTS=-DHAVE_DBUS"
-
-do_install_append () {
-        install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d
-        install -m 644 dbus/dnsmasq.conf ${D}${sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d/
-}
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq.inc b/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq.inc
index ef99f48..fa42dd2 100644
--- a/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq.inc
+++ b/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/dnsmasq/dnsmasq.inc
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ LICENSE = "GPLv2 GPLv3"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3 \
                     file://COPYING-v3;md5=d32239bcb673463ab874e80d47fae504"
 
+PR = "r1"
+
 #at least versions 2.15 and prior are moved to the archive folder on the server
 SRC_URI = "http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/${@['archive/', ''][float(d.getVar('PV',1).split('.')[1]) > 15]}dnsmasq-${PV}.tar.gz;name=dnsmasq-${PV} \
            file://init \
@@ -13,6 +15,9 @@ SRC_URI = "http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/${@['archive/', ''][float(d.getV
            file://dnsmasq.service \
 "
 
+DEPENDS = "dbus"
+EXTRA_OEMAKE = "COPTS=-DHAVE_DBUS"
+
 inherit update-rc.d systemd
 
 INITSCRIPT_NAME = "dnsmasq"
@@ -27,6 +32,9 @@ do_install () {
         install -m 644 ${WORKDIR}/dnsmasq.conf ${D}${sysconfdir}/
         install -m 755 ${WORKDIR}/init ${D}${sysconfdir}/init.d/dnsmasq
 
+        install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d
+        install -m 644 dbus/dnsmasq.conf ${D}${sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d/
+
         install -d ${D}${systemd_unitdir}/system
         install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/dnsmasq.service ${D}${systemd_unitdir}/system
 }
@@ -37,3 +45,7 @@ RPROVIDES_${PN} += "${PN}-systemd"
 RREPLACES_${PN} += "${PN}-systemd"
 RCONFLICTS_${PN} += "${PN}-systemd"
 SYSTEMD_SERVICE_${PN} = "dnsmasq.service"
+
+RPROVIDES_${PN} += "${PN}-dbus"
+RREPLACES_${PN} += "${PN}-dbus"
+RCONFLICTS_${PN} += "${PN}-dbus"
-- 
1.8.1.5

Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] dnsmasq: merge dnsmasq-dbus to main recipe

[Paul Eggleton]

On Sunday 14 April 2013 15:49:34 Martin Jansa wrote:
> * they conflict in sysroot anyway, should be converted to PACKAGECONFIG
>   but because dbus is already built in most images I'll let it for someone
>   who has such use-case

Hang on a sec, I agree it's good to get rid of this second recipe, but you're 
changing the default - so at least give people a way to influence it. It's not 
too hard to put in PACKAGECONFIG now while you're changing the recipe anyway.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] dnsmasq: merge dnsmasq-dbus to main recipe

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Sunday 14 April 2013 15:49:34 Martin Jansa wrote:
> > * they conflict in sysroot anyway, should be converted to PACKAGECONFIG
> >   but because dbus is already built in most images I'll let it for someone
> >   who has such use-case
> 
> Hang on a sec, I agree it's good to get rid of this second recipe, but you're 
> changing the default - so at least give people a way to influence it. It's not 
> too hard to put in PACKAGECONFIG now while you're changing the recipe anyway.

is there someone who needs dnsmasq without dbus?

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

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

Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] dnsmasq: merge dnsmasq-dbus to main recipe

[Paul Eggleton]

On Sunday 14 April 2013 17:04:23 Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Sunday 14 April 2013 15:49:34 Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > * they conflict in sysroot anyway, should be converted to PACKAGECONFIG
> > > 
> > >   but because dbus is already built in most images I'll let it for
> > >   someone
> > >   who has such use-case
> > 
> > Hang on a sec, I agree it's good to get rid of this second recipe, but
> > you're changing the default - so at least give people a way to influence
> > it. It's not too hard to put in PACKAGECONFIG now while you're changing
> > the recipe anyway.
>
> is there someone who needs dnsmasq without dbus?

It's not too hard to imagine a minimal system that wants one and not the 
other. We had two recipes originally for a reason. Sure, it's fine if you're 
already using something that uses dbus and therefore you'll have it anyway, 
but not everyone is in the same situation.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] dnsmasq: merge dnsmasq-dbus to main recipe

[Paul Eggleton]

On Sunday 14 April 2013 16:09:21 Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Sunday 14 April 2013 17:04:23 Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > On Sunday 14 April 2013 15:49:34 Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > > * they conflict in sysroot anyway, should be converted to
> > > > PACKAGECONFIG
> > > > 
> > > >   but because dbus is already built in most images I'll let it for
> > > >   someone
> > > >   who has such use-case
> > > 
> > > Hang on a sec, I agree it's good to get rid of this second recipe, but
> > > you're changing the default - so at least give people a way to influence
> > > it. It's not too hard to put in PACKAGECONFIG now while you're changing
> > > the recipe anyway.
> > 
> > is there someone who needs dnsmasq without dbus?
> 
> It's not too hard to imagine a minimal system that wants one and not the
> other. We had two recipes originally for a reason. Sure, it's fine if you're
> already using something that uses dbus and therefore you'll have it anyway,
> but not everyone is in the same situation.

FYI, I already have a patch to do this coming as part of my meta-networking 
moves patchset which I am re-applying at the moment.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre