From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE2877352 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:42:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2016 13:42:33 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,498,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="911388159" Received: from jlock-mobl1.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.252.4.104]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2016 13:42:32 -0800 Message-ID: <1456436543.13135.7.camel@linux.intel.com> From: Joshua G Lock To: Philip Balister , Paul Eggleton , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:42:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: <56CE1543.7050703@balister.org> References: <56CDD519.9050109@gmail.com> <56CDDBCD.6090303@balister.org> <2791977.VXU03QmIbh@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> <56CE1543.7050703@balister.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.1 (3.18.5.1-1.fc23) Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Integrate swupd software updater X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:42:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 15:40 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > On 02/24/2016 02:51 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:35:25 Philip Balister wrote: > > > > > > On 02/24/2016 11:06 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > > > > > > > > Ideally the work done here and the work done on meta- > > > > swupdate[1] would > > > > be somehow merged so people creating images/distros would only > > > > have to > > > > learn and integrate one software update solution, instead of > > > > having to > > > > evaluate and choose between the two (or more?). > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/sbabic/meta-swupdate > > > Amen. I had the same thoughts reading the patch set intro. > > I think it would be hard to integrate these two, since they operate > > quite  > > differently to eachother. > >   > > > > > > Maybe the swupd should go in a seperate layer so we can see which > > > project works best for oe users before moving something directly > > > into > > > oe-core? > > This makes sense to me too though FWIW. The os-release patch should > > probably  > > go straight in, but everything else looks like it could comfortably > > live in a  > > separate layer without making things too difficult. > It also makes it easier to update as problems in swupd are resolved > since you do not need to go through the entire oe-core testing cycle. I've pushed the series, including a couple of metadata fixes suggested in reply, as a layer here: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/me ta-swupd/ Regards, Joshua