Re: opkg dependencies and update-alternatives

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

On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 16:24 +0000, Paul Barker wrote:
> On 18 November 2013 16:20, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:31:09PM +0000, Paul Barker wrote:
> >> On 18 November 2013 11:57, Richard Purdie
> >> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Paul: Have you any opinion of moving update-alternatives to its own
> >> > repository separate from opkg? or just check it into OE-Core as its just
> >> > a single script? Its not as if it really needs much from opkg at this
> >> > point?
> >>
> >> I'd be quite happy to break it out into a separate repo. I think
> >> that's better than direct inclusion into oe-core so that it remains
> >> easily usable by non-oe systems.
> >
> > What about including it in opkg-utils repo? And maybe even providing u-a
> > by opkg-utils.bb?
> >
> > opkg-utils.bb doesn't have any DEPENDS (Only python RDEPENDS) so it
> > would be good compromise between opkg and completely new recipe.
> >
> 
> I think this is the most sensible option. If u-a is put into a
> separate package it shouldn't need any RDEPENDS either.
> 
> I'll send in the patches I have for oe-core, they'll need a little
> more testing before they're ready to be pushed to the mainline though.

Having a python RDEPENDS means that will turn into python-native and
that is a pretty heavy dependency in its own right :(

Cheers,

Richard