From: Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>
To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] udev (165): move ConsoleKit support to udev-consolekit package
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:09:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D7E59CD.8090507@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik7cEA=Yw7fwkEbvOUeV28YseMjpexnBfQuM-jT@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/14/2011 11:00 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Tom Rini<tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote:
>> On 03/12/2011 03:03 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 12 mrt 2011, om 21:21 heeft Otavio Salvador het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 16:27, Otavio Salvador<otavio@ossystems.com.br>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> -PACKAGES =+ "libudev libgudev udev-utils"
>>>>> +PACKAGES =+ "libudev libgudev udev-utils udev-consolekit"
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Koen, can you take a look on this change?
>>>>
>>>> It seems Angstrom is the only used of this version and seems better to
>>>> not provide support for consolekit by default so adding it as
>>>> recommends or suggests seems wrong to me.
>>>
>>> If someone can quickly explain me what it does then we can see what needs
>>> to get changed. Without having looked into it I think adding
>>> RRECOMMENDS_${PN} += "udev-consolekit" to the consolekit recipe should fix
>>> most possible breakage.
>>>
>>> Adding oe-core to CC:
>>>
>>> What are the plans in oe-core for udev? There currently is a recipe
>>> overlayed in meta-oe because I haven't had time to look into the differences
>>> between the oe-dev and oe-core version. If we're going to touch udev we
>>> might as well do it properly :)
>>
>> Not sure off hand yet, but udev is one of the things we might need to keep a
>> few versions around of, depending on how far back we want to support kernels
>> out of the box.
>
> I would think this should be recommended into BSP layers then
I wouldn't since we don't want every BSP to have to "re-invent" the udev
wheel. And there's other bits of userspace where there's a relationship
between the kernel version (the whole kernel headers version and iirc
hipox machines thread on oe-devel).
I'm not saying we need to keep every version of udev either, I'm just
saying we know where there's cutoff points and we should have correct
and maintained udev versions in the core.
--
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-14 18:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1299958038-25216-1-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br>
[not found] ` <1299958038-25216-6-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br>
[not found] ` <AANLkTimiahf+8xJ_nNePkXzB3Lhton2+5JqquPmruN24@mail.gmail.com>
2011-03-12 22:03 ` [PATCH 05/11] udev (165): move ConsoleKit support to udev-consolekit package Koen Kooi
2011-03-14 12:33 ` Otavio Salvador
2011-03-14 16:46 ` Tom Rini
2011-03-14 18:00 ` Khem Raj
2011-03-14 18:09 ` Tom Rini [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=4D7E59CD.8090507@mentor.com \
--to=tom_rini@mentor.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \
/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