Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 09:47 +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Am Montag, den 14.11.2011, 21:48 +0000 schrieb Richard Purdie:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > >> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.
> > > > 
> > > > I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the
> > > > default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code,
> > > > parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate
> > > > recipes?
> > > 
> > > I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra
> > > buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS.
> > > 
> > The proposals for alternative recipes for the different combinations got
> > voted down and PACKAGECONFIG was the preferred solution.
> 
> Where is this vote (and discussion) documented? I found nothing in the
> OE Wiki and searching for it with »openembedded packageconfig vote
> oe-core list« brought up only some minutes [1].
> 
> I also do not remember anything on openembedded-devel where such general
> discussion definitely belong in my opinion.
> 
> It would be great if somebody could help me by giving me an URL.

The reference I could find was:

http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/tsc/2011-October/000302.html

which asked for objections amongst the TSC members, non were received.
I'm drawing a blank finding the previous discussion, I think there was a
different term used and I can't think what it was which makes searching
hard. There was also discussion of the actual patches on the mailing
list (which IMO is where the discussion should really happen).

Cheers,

Richard