From: "Denys Dmytriyenko" <denis@denix.org>
To: Gregor Zatko <gzatko@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>,
openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] update-alternatives: introduce new package as a opkg-utils spin-off
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:06:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200602200651.GW17660@denix.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bded0f0277713e63b4df6f8657acee567229e0eb.camel@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 09:45:28PM +0200, Gregor Zatko wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 21:43 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> > Hello Gregor,
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 21:09:25 +0200"Gregor Zatko" <gzatko@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In some cases there is a need for update-alternatives script which
> > > gets builtwithin opkg-utils recipe into a standalone package.
> > > However, this causes tomany unnecessary dependencies, including
> > > Python, bc, OpenSSL etc. to be built.
> > > In this commit a standalone lightweight recipe for update-
> > > alternatives thatshouldn't be dependent on nothing other than bash.
> > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8879
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gregor Zatko <gzatko@gmail.com>---
> > > .../conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc | 6 +--
> > > meta/conf/layer.conf | 3 +-
> > > .../packagegroups/packagegroup-self-hosted.bb | 1 + .../opkg-
> > > utils/opkg-utils_0.4.2.bb | 25 +--------- .../update-
> > > alternatives_0.4.2.bb | 49 +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > why did you change the name from update-alternatives-opkg to update-
> > alternatives? I would prefer to keep the suffix in order to be able
> > to distinguish it more easily from other implementations, e.g.
> > dpkg's.
> > Best regards,Andreas
>
> I have no problem to revert the name back to original. However, I'm not
> sure whether this patch will be accepted because it seems to solve only
> a minimal part of the problem or nothing at all :-)
And what exactly are you trying to solve then?
It seems you are more concerned with build-time dependencies than you are with
run-time ones. Building opkg-utils is a drop in the bucket (it is quite small)
and can usually be ignored, as long as it's not installed when you don't need
it. The resulting update-alternatives-opkg package is a tiny one with no extra
RDEPENDS and that's what matters.
If your concern is that it builds opkg-utils and its dependencies even though
you may be using rpm, then it is also true in the other direction - rpm gets
built when IPK/opkg is the default package manager...
--
Denys
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-02 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-02 19:09 [PATCH] update-alternatives: introduce new package as a opkg-utils spin-off Gregor Zatko
2020-06-02 19:27 ` [OE-core] " Denys Dmytriyenko
2020-06-02 19:43 ` Gregor Zatko
2020-06-02 19:49 ` Phil Blundell
2020-06-02 19:54 ` Denys Dmytriyenko
2020-06-02 19:32 ` Phil Blundell
2020-06-02 19:43 ` Andreas Oberritter
2020-06-02 19:45 ` Gregor Zatko
2020-06-02 20:06 ` Denys Dmytriyenko [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200602200651.GW17660@denix.org \
--to=denis@denix.org \
--cc=gzatko@gmail.com \
--cc=obi@opendreambox.org \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox