From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UROpP-0006hA-ME for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:26:53 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2013 08:09:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,471,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="318046521" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.13.160]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2013 08:09:22 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Martin Jansa Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 16:09:21 +0100 Message-ID: <9692220.xQMF5DQqQm@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.5.0-27-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130414150423.GF2475@jama> References: <1365947374-20385-1-git-send-email-Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> <1549811.0FvVnHz5f8@helios> <20130414150423.GF2475@jama> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] dnsmasq: merge dnsmasq-dbus to main recipe X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:27:03 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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