Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5

Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5

[Saul Wold]

Cristi, Ross:

There is currently a PREFERRED_PROVIDER issue with bluez4 and bluez5 and 
I am beginning to think we need to distinguish the 
libasound-module-bluez with libasound-module-bluez5.

I am also seeing some areas where we might need a virtual/bluez to allow 
recipes to enable features in places like connman and ofono

Thoughts?



-- 
     Sau!

Saul Wold
Yocto Component Wrangler @ Intel
Yocto Project / Poky Build System

Re: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5

[Iorga, Cristian]

Hi Saul, Ross,

I think that for the time being libasound-module-bluez should be libasound-module-bluez5.
We will get back to it after 1.5, when all components will be ready for BlueZ 5.
On the second issue, can you please go into details? I am not following exactly.
Regards,
Cristian

-----Original Message-----
From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:24 PM
To: 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer'; Iorga, Cristian; Burton, Ross
Subject: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5



Cristi, Ross:

There is currently a PREFERRED_PROVIDER issue with bluez4 and bluez5 and I am beginning to think we need to distinguish the libasound-module-bluez with libasound-module-bluez5.

I am also seeing some areas where we might need a virtual/bluez to allow recipes to enable features in places like connman and ofono

Thoughts?



-- 
     Sau!

Saul Wold
Yocto Component Wrangler @ Intel
Yocto Project / Poky Build System

Re: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5

[Saul Wold]

On 07/28/2013 11:34 PM, Iorga, Cristian wrote:
> Back from the past!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iorga, Cristian
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:51 AM
> To: 'Saul Wold'; 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer'; Burton, Ross
> Subject: RE: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5
>
> Hi Saul, Ross,
>
> I think that for the time being libasound-module-bluez should be libasound-module-bluez5.
> We will get back to it after 1.5, when all components will be ready for BlueZ 5.
This can not wait until after 1.5, it's a note and needs to be addressed 
now. Martin has also reported this issue to you as well.

> On the second issue, can you please go into details? I am not following exactly.

It's possible for new version of ofono or connman to want to use bluez5, 
via the PACKAGECONFIG settings, we need to allow that to happen with out 
having to embed bluez4 vs bluez5 in the recipe, this can be done with a 
virtual/bluez style of declartion you can see examples of this for 
virtual/libc and in the meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc file

Sau!

> Regards,
> Cristian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:24 PM
> To: 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer'; Iorga, Cristian; Burton, Ross
> Subject: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5
>
>
>
> Cristi, Ross:
>
> There is currently a PREFERRED_PROVIDER issue with bluez4 and bluez5 and I am beginning to think we need to distinguish the libasound-module-bluez with libasound-module-bluez5.
>
> I am also seeing some areas where we might need a virtual/bluez to allow recipes to enable features in places like connman and ofono
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>

Re: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5

[Iorga, Cristian]

OK, thanks, will handle it this week.
Regards,
/Cristian

-----Original Message-----
From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:40 AM
To: Iorga, Cristian; 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer'
Cc: Burton, Ross
Subject: Re: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5

On 07/28/2013 11:34 PM, Iorga, Cristian wrote:
> Back from the past!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iorga, Cristian
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:51 AM
> To: 'Saul Wold'; 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer'; 
> Burton, Ross
> Subject: RE: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5
>
> Hi Saul, Ross,
>
> I think that for the time being libasound-module-bluez should be libasound-module-bluez5.
> We will get back to it after 1.5, when all components will be ready for BlueZ 5.
This can not wait until after 1.5, it's a note and needs to be addressed now. Martin has also reported this issue to you as well.

> On the second issue, can you please go into details? I am not following exactly.

It's possible for new version of ofono or connman to want to use bluez5, via the PACKAGECONFIG settings, we need to allow that to happen with out having to embed bluez4 vs bluez5 in the recipe, this can be done with a virtual/bluez style of declartion you can see examples of this for virtual/libc and in the meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc file

Sau!

> Regards,
> Cristian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:24 PM
> To: 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer'; Iorga, 
> Cristian; Burton, Ross
> Subject: Thoughts about bluez4 and bluez5
>
>
>
> Cristi, Ross:
>
> There is currently a PREFERRED_PROVIDER issue with bluez4 and bluez5 and I am beginning to think we need to distinguish the libasound-module-bluez with libasound-module-bluez5.
>
> I am also seeing some areas where we might need a virtual/bluez to 
> allow recipes to enable features in places like connman and ofono
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>