From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T8UVM-0006qH-N8 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:07:44 +0200 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2012 03:55:22 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,359,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="188178842" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.121.155]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2012 03:55:21 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Phil Blundell Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:54:30 +0100 Message-ID: <1554049.jPb4PTGYOQ@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.9 (Linux/3.2.0-29-generic-pae; KDE/4.9.0; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1346669402.2673.122.camel@phil-desktop> References: <2466289.CAG9RzjSbc@helios> <1346669402.2673.122.camel@phil-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: 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 11:07:45 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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. I'd be more than happy if we went the other way and decided that IPsec was something worth fully supporting in OE-Core, and brought in the corresponding user-space bits as a result; but that's somewhat outside of the scope of this work. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre