From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T8Zop-0000zr-Br for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:48:11 +0200 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2012 09:35:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,360,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="188267702" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.121.155]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2012 09:35:33 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Koen Kooi Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:34:42 +0100 Message-ID: <10363526.IokYFYkZ8L@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.9 (Linux/3.2.0-29-generic-pae; KDE/4.9.0; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <0FE91CED-1C7F-46B8-953C-D2D7DD7B7D4B@dominion.thruhere.net> References: <1554049.jPb4PTGYOQ@helios> <0FE91CED-1C7F-46B8-953C-D2D7DD7B7D4B@dominion.thruhere.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Phil Blundell , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/28] packagegroup-base: remove openswan from packagegroup-base-ipsec X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:48:11 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Monday 03 September 2012 18:25:35 Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 3 sep. 2012, om 12:54 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven: > > On Monday 03 September 2012 11:50:01 Phil Blundell wrote: > >> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:37 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > >>> On Monday 03 September 2012 11:35:24 Phil Blundell wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:30 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > >>>>> openswan was only ever provided in unmaintained form in meta-demoapps > >>>>> which has been removed, so we never really provided it in OE-Core. > >>>> > >>>> Isn't packagegroup-base-ipsec rather useless without it? > >>> > >>> If you ignore the RRECOMMENDS line that follows, yes. > >> > >> Is there a meaningful use-case where installing kernel-module-ipsec > >> without any user-space support is a desirable thing to do? And, even if > >> the answer is yes, is it really valuable to have a > >> packagegroup-base-ipsec which just recommends a single other package > >> without doing anything else? > > > > The idea is supposed to be that just having "ipsec" in DISTRO_FEATURES > > brings in what we can to support IPsec, assuming your image uses > > packagegroup-base that is. > > Isn't that an IMAGE_FEATURE? It has been implemented within DISTRO_FEATURES since long ago in the OE- Classic days. We could move it to IMAGE_FEATURES or simply have it as a package group on its own, however the minute we have something that requires enabling/disabling IPsec at configure time it will break. A cursory google search suggests this is not an unlikely situation although not one we actually face right now. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre