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

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Thursday 01 November 2012 13:32:40 Joe MacDonald wrote:
> [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.

I'm not sure that it does. I think the split was made just to avoid bringing
in OpenSSL on systems where it was not needed or desired. Phil Blundell (on 
CC) made the split quite a while ago in OE-Classic - Phil can you comment?

> 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.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean here... ?

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre