From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0456C994 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2013 10:16:37 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,972,1371106800"; d="scan'208";a="382913055" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.120.52]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2013 10:16:34 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Joe MacDonald Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:16:33 +0100 Message-ID: <62747590.0CPS7u3973@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-30-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130923182159.GA30829@deserted.net> References: <1379927191-21769-1-git-send-email-b40290@freescale.com> <10075581.zIxvIPmXvh@helios> <20130923182159.GA30829@deserted.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [meta-networking][PATCH 1/3] snort: add recipe X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:16:39 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Joe, On Monday 23 September 2013 14:22:02 Joe MacDonald wrote: > [Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH 1/3] snort: add recipe] On 13.09.23 (Mon > 18:56) Paul Eggleton wrote: > > > > I'm a bit confused; is this recipe supposed to be going into > > meta-networking or meta-security? Because patches have been sent > > recently to add it to both. > > I had mentioned that I would accept snort into meta-networking if it > wasn't a good fit for meta-security since it was something I'd started > working on integrating anyway a while back. I assumed that was the case > since it was sent to the list for meta-networking today. > > I don't think we need copies in both places, though, and since it was > first aimed at meta-security, if it gets merged there, I won't merge it > here. > > Hopefully nothing I've said here contradicts what the meta-security > maintainers would want to see. I would have thought it would go into meta-security myself; but ultimately it's up to you and Saul really. I just wanted to make sure we didn't somehow end up with it in both layers since we have patches for adding it to both. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre