Re: packages versioning

[Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>]

> Ya, I created the spreadsheet due to the complexity.. :(  I like the 
> flexibility of the components that are used to construct the image 
> packages, but there has to be a more transparent way of doing this.
I concur. I am starting to like oe and its flexibility, but it is a hell 
of a steep curve at first to take on...particularly for people like me 
that have little-to-no experience of oe.

> (Sent as a private email)
Got it, thanks a lot - will look at it tomorrow in more detail.

> As Gary suggested in another email, "hob" is the best approach right now.
I'll try that as well - it would be nice to see where all these 
dependencies/packages come from, because for my (admittedly, rather 
limited) case I won't need half the packages installed on that image, 
but OTOH would need to add a few additions of my own to what is already 
'included', so it is quite a change. I also plan to create one or two 
new recipes for packages worth including (particularly for small systems 
like the console image I am trying to build).

What is the policy of submitting patches on here - I followed the debate 
about oe-classic/oe-core, but am still unclear if I want to submit 
patches (I am working with oe-classic - so I am told) what should I base 
against these?

> You can certainly remove binary packages after the fact, but it's much 
> nicer to not have to.
Indeed and it is the reason for asking here first as I always believe 
there must be more intelligent and elegant solution to this than hacking 
the target system (which I'll have to do each time I 
build/update/upgrade that image).