From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RQKnC-0001jk-A1 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:19:31 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAFFCuQ3026718 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:12:56 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 26302-05 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:12:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAFFCm5F026712 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:12:49 GMT Message-ID: <1321369973.26881.225.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:12:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: <0B9C45DF-86DC-4D1C-8D66-C59EB17C9D8C@dominion.thruhere.net> References: <1321307338.26881.83.camel@ted> <20A7BCF2-FB25-4E8F-91A5-00F5234AB184@dominion.thruhere.net> <1822275.d3xp7880vj@helios> <64A64AAB-6921-4A47-99FD-26BD1C58D15C@dominion.thruhere.net> <1321364620.26881.211.camel@ted> <543166F7-0EA0-47B3-A7E1-4EE932979710@dominion.thruhere.net> <1321368170.26881.221.camel@ted> <0B9C45DF-86DC-4D1C-8D66-C59EB17C9D8C@dominion.thruhere.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:19:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 15 nov. 2011, om 15:42 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > >>> To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't > >>> use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We > >>> should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than > >>> that where is the problem other than a general objection to > >>> PACKAGECONFIG? > >> > >> It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist. > > > > There are multiple ways of coexisting and the configuration changing > > based on DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't force a choice either. > > It does force a choice, since you don't want to change DISTRO_FEATURES > when distributing binaries. If changing it is safe, then it isn't a > DISTRO_FEATURE. I'd expect a given distro to be able to figure out in advance whether it intends to have X11 or not? If unsure you leave it present... I really don't see the problem here. Cheers, Richard