Proposal: Creating meta-networking

Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Joe MacDonald]

Hi all,

We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
community at large.  We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
recipes, etc.  for networking packages.  I'll try to address what seem to
be the most immediate questions (certainly the ones we've been thinking
most about any time I've discussed this with anyone):

Who would use this?

   The intent is that this would be a layer generally useful directly on
   top of the Yocto Project / OE-core, but it would also draw from and
   compliment meta-oe.  Right now I'm imagining two main groups interested
   in this layer.

      - Anyone building a small networking device (eg. a home router /
        bridge / switch).

      - Anyone wanting to add network services to their device (eg.
        anything that might benefit from a small ftp/tftp server)

What will it include?

   The focus should be on networking protocols, daemons, servers and utilities.
   The plan is for a staged approach.  Initially we're going to bring forward a
   number of recipes from OE Classic that aren't currently in OE-core or the
   meta-oe layer.  The short list right now is:

      - aoetools
      - openldap
      - quagga
      - radvd
      - tftp-hpa
      - traceroute
      - tunctl
      - vblade
      - vlan
      - xl2tpd

   The next two stages would run concurrently, with Wind River
   contributing a number of recipes we intend to support for the
   long-term.  That list is still being firmed up but will include:

      - freeradius
      - netcat
      - racoon2
      - rdist

   There's about another six or seven packages on the short list right
   now, generally in the same vein.

   The other stage is migrating packages that seem like obvious fits into
   this layer from meta-oe.  The current list under consideration would
   be:

      - atftp
      - bridge-utils
      - dnsmasq
      - dnsmasq-dbus
      - inetutils
      - ipsec-tools
      - iw
      - libnet
      - libnfnetlink
      - net-snmp
      - ntp
      - ntp-ssl
      - openvpn
      - ptpd
      - rp-pppoe
      - samba
      - strongswan
      - talloc
      - tcpdump
      - vsftpd

That's a lot of stuff, are you going to organize it somehow?

   The plan is that we will have subdirectories for logical groups of
   recipes in much the same way meta-oe is organized today.  Groupings I
   would propose right now would be:

      - recipes-daemons
         - containing stuff like atftp, dnsmasq, racoon2, radvd, etc.
      - recipes-protocols
         - containing stuff like quagga, openldap, xl2tpd, maybe iscsi if it
           appears, etc.
      - recipes-support
         - containing the rest, aoetools, bridge-utils, traceroute, etc.

   This is definitely the least-clear part of our plan so far and would
   need the most feedback and fine-tuning, I expect.

Why move anything from meta-oe?

   "Networking" covers such a broad area and touches so much that it
   really seems like 'meta-networking' should be a home for all of the
   embedded networking bits.  Leaving some parts in meta-oe and having the
   rest in meta-networking would ultimately seem a bit arbitrary.

Who is 'we'?

   Wind River is volunteering to maintain the layer and any recipes we
   contribute at the outset.  For recipes imported from OE Classic it'd be
   great if the maintainers there continued ownership, but if that's not
   possible, WR will also sign up for general maintenance.  For recipes
   imported from meta-oe we would hope that the current maintainers would
   continue support in meta-networking once it's created.  WR definitely
   won't be able to do this alone so we're hoping for help from everyone
   here.

When are you doing this?

   I've been working on a prototype on and off for the last little bit but
   considering the scope and potential impact, it seemed best to open up
   the discussion here first and if it seemed like a generally desirable
   thing, we'd get some version of this up and available within a few days
   of consensus.

So what does everyone think?  Awesome idea?  Terrible idea?  (Hopefully)
something in between?  All feedback is welcome.

-- 
Joe MacDonald, Sr. Member of Technical Staff, Linux Products Group, Wind River
direct 613.270.5750     mobile 613.291.7421     fax 613.592.2283

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Khem Raj]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 6/15/2012 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while
> now, but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to
> the OE community at large.  We're thinking about creating a new
> layer to house recipes, etc.  for networking packages.  I'll try to
> address what seem to be the most immediate questions (certainly the
> ones we've been thinking most about any time I've discussed this
> with anyone):
> 
> Who would use this?
> 
> The intent is that this would be a layer generally useful directly
> on top of the Yocto Project / OE-core, but it would also draw from
> and compliment meta-oe.  Right now I'm imagining two main groups
> interested in this layer.
> 
> - Anyone building a small networking device (eg. a home router / 
> bridge / switch).
> 
> - Anyone wanting to add network services to their device (eg. 
> anything that might benefit from a small ftp/tftp server)
> 
> What will it include?
> 
> The focus should be on networking protocols, daemons, servers and
> utilities. The plan is for a staged approach.  Initially we're
> going to bring forward a number of recipes from OE Classic that
> aren't currently in OE-core or the meta-oe layer.  The short list
> right now is:
> 
> - aoetools - openldap - quagga - radvd - tftp-hpa - traceroute -
> tunctl - vblade - vlan - xl2tpd
> 
> The next two stages would run concurrently, with Wind River 
> contributing a number of recipes we intend to support for the 
> long-term.  That list is still being firmed up but will include:
> 
> - freeradius - netcat - racoon2 - rdist
> 
> There's about another six or seven packages on the short list
> right now, generally in the same vein.
> 
> The other stage is migrating packages that seem like obvious fits
> into this layer from meta-oe.  The current list under consideration
> would be:
> 
> - atftp - bridge-utils - dnsmasq - dnsmasq-dbus - inetutils -
> ipsec-tools - iw - libnet - libnfnetlink - net-snmp - ntp -
> ntp-ssl - openvpn - ptpd - rp-pppoe - samba - strongswan - talloc -
> tcpdump - vsftpd
> 
> That's a lot of stuff, are you going to organize it somehow?
> 
> The plan is that we will have subdirectories for logical groups of 
> recipes in much the same way meta-oe is organized today.  Groupings
> I would propose right now would be:
> 
> - recipes-daemons - containing stuff like atftp, dnsmasq, racoon2,
> radvd, etc. - recipes-protocols - containing stuff like quagga,
> openldap, xl2tpd, maybe iscsi if it appears, etc. -
> recipes-support - containing the rest, aoetools, bridge-utils,
> traceroute, etc.
> 
> This is definitely the least-clear part of our plan so far and
> would need the most feedback and fine-tuning, I expect.
> 
> Why move anything from meta-oe?
> 
> "Networking" covers such a broad area and touches so much that it 
> really seems like 'meta-networking' should be a home for all of
> the embedded networking bits.  Leaving some parts in meta-oe and
> having the rest in meta-networking would ultimately seem a bit
> arbitrary.
> 
> Who is 'we'?
> 
> Wind River is volunteering to maintain the layer and any recipes
> we contribute at the outset.  For recipes imported from OE Classic
> it'd be great if the maintainers there continued ownership, but if
> that's not possible, WR will also sign up for general maintenance.
> For recipes imported from meta-oe we would hope that the current
> maintainers would continue support in meta-networking once it's
> created.  WR definitely won't be able to do this alone so we're
> hoping for help from everyone here.
> 
> When are you doing this?
> 
> I've been working on a prototype on and off for the last little bit
> but considering the scope and potential impact, it seemed best to
> open up the discussion here first and if it seemed like a generally
> desirable thing, we'd get some version of this up and available
> within a few days of consensus.
> 
> So what does everyone think?  Awesome idea?  Terrible idea?
> (Hopefully) something in between?  All feedback is welcome.
> 

I think creating a networking layer is fine idea, alongside meta-oe,
as a separate layer in meta-openembedded repo. Reshuffling recipes
from meta-oe into different layers is fine. I would like to avoid copies.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/bV9sACgkQuwUzVZGdMxSaVgCeJN3phaSkPA18pJkb4mtjq2i5
BzQAnRK05weQOYDQxFc9ZqWz04MUrqB6
=8Cdm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think creating a networking layer is fine idea, alongside meta-oe,
> as a separate layer in meta-openembedded repo. Reshuffling recipes
> from meta-oe into different layers is fine. I would like to avoid copies.

I'd prefer if it used another git repository; people needing to use it
shouldn't be forced to clone whole meta-oe.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think creating a networking layer is fine idea, alongside meta-oe,
> > as a separate layer in meta-openembedded repo. Reshuffling recipes
> > from meta-oe into different layers is fine. I would like to avoid copies.
>
> I'd prefer if it used another git repository; people needing to use it
> shouldn't be forced to clone whole meta-oe.
>
> This would be my proposal as well. To have this as a separate layer.

@g

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 947 bytes --]

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Philip Balister]

On 06/15/2012 02:55 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think creating a networking layer is fine idea, alongside meta-oe,
>>> as a separate layer in meta-openembedded repo. Reshuffling recipes
>>> from meta-oe into different layers is fine. I would like to avoid copies.
>>
>> I'd prefer if it used another git repository; people needing to use it
>> shouldn't be forced to clone whole meta-oe.
>>
>> This would be my proposal as well. To have this as a separate layer.

meta-oe already hosts several layers. It is kind of nice not to have to
clone a slowly increasing number of git repos. Rather clone a few and
manage the layers within them.

My larger concern with the networking layer, is what layers will it
depend on? Will the layer dependencies change based on the distro
features? This is the hardest thing to get right with layer grouping.

Philip

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Joe MacDonald]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Philip Balister <philip@balister.org> wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 02:55 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think creating a networking layer is fine idea, alongside meta-oe,
>>>> as a separate layer in meta-openembedded repo. Reshuffling recipes
>>>> from meta-oe into different layers is fine. I would like to avoid copies.
>>>
>>> I'd prefer if it used another git repository; people needing to use it
>>> shouldn't be forced to clone whole meta-oe.
>>>
>>> This would be my proposal as well. To have this as a separate layer.
>
> meta-oe already hosts several layers. It is kind of nice not to have to
> clone a slowly increasing number of git repos. Rather clone a few and
> manage the layers within them.

I'm inclined to agree.  I see the value in keeping this in meta-oe,
but my goal with this layer is that it's as self-contained as
possible.  Meaning that it could be used by someone building a small,
network connected system.  I'm thinking there'd be value in reflecting
in the layer itself by being a separate repo that can be cloned
independent of the rest of meta-oe.

I can definitely see both sides of the debate, though.

> My larger concern with the networking layer, is what layers will it
> depend on? Will the layer dependencies change based on the distro
> features? This is the hardest thing to get right with layer grouping.

Agreed.  The intent is for it to not depend on any layers other than
oe-core.  The reality will likely be something short of that ideal,
but what I`ve been playing with as my proof-of-concept is nicely
self-contained.  You bring up a really good point, though, about layer
dependencies changing based on distro features.  I think that`s
something that we`d have to manage carefully.

-J.

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Marko Lindqvist]

On 15 June 2012 22:55, Philip Balister <philip@balister.org> wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 02:55 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think creating a networking layer is fine idea, alongside meta-oe,
>>>> as a separate layer in meta-openembedded repo. Reshuffling recipes
>>>> from meta-oe into different layers is fine. I would like to avoid copies.
>>>
>>> I'd prefer if it used another git repository; people needing to use it
>>> shouldn't be forced to clone whole meta-oe.
>>>
>>> This would be my proposal as well. To have this as a separate layer.
>
> meta-oe already hosts several layers. It is kind of nice not to have to
> clone a slowly increasing number of git repos. Rather clone a few and
> manage the layers within them.

 Need to clone many separate repos for building your own system
(bitbake, oe-core, oe-meta, oe-networking, your own sw) is a minor
annoyance in itself, but need to synchronize between them (what
revisions of the first repo are compatible with given revision of the
second) could lead to headaches for someone having additional
constraints of the production level system maintenance (i.e. when one
cannot simply take HEAD of everything).
 I do see both sides. Either some people need to clone bigger repo
than they absolutely need, or some other people are forced to clone
several repos. Depends on OE userbase which one would annoy more
people.


 - ML

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Otavio Salvador]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Marko Lindqvist <cazfi74@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Need to clone many separate repos for building your own system
> (bitbake, oe-core, oe-meta, oe-networking, your own sw) is a minor
> annoyance in itself, but need to synchronize between them (what
> revisions of the first repo are compatible with given revision of the
> second) could lead to headaches for someone having additional
> constraints of the production level system maintenance (i.e. when one
> cannot simply take HEAD of everything).

I've been working using repo for this and it works very nice! easy to
have a stable release when it is desired and easy to follow upstream
otherwise.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Firago Alexey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]

Hi all,

On 6/15/2012 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
> but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
> community at large.  We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
> recipes, etc.  for networking packages.
> ...
> So what does everyone think?  Awesome idea?  Terrible idea?  (Hopefully)
> something in between?  All feedback is welcome.

I think creating software support layer for network related packages is 
good idea.
We've updated some of the recipes from OE Classic mentioned above for 
our projects at Mentor Graphics.
We've been thinking to place these updated recipes in meta-oe layer. But 
I think now that separate layer like meta-networking
would be much more suitable place.  Also we've created some new packages 
like mipv6-umip or multipath-tools
that are good candidates for being placed in meta-networking.

So, I suggest Mentor Graphics would contribute to meta-networking.

--
Alexey Firago**|Software Engineer, Embedded Systems Division, Mentor 
Graphics

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1771 bytes --]

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Christopher Larson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

On Friday, June 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
> but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
> community at large. We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
> recipes, etc. for networking packages. I'll try to address what seem to
> be the most immediate questions (certainly the ones we've been thinking
> most about any time I've discussed this with anyone):
> 
Has their been any progress on the creation of this layer?
-- 
Christopher Larson


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3563 bytes --]

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Joe MacDonald]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>
> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
> but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
> community at large. We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
> recipes, etc. for networking packages. I'll try to address what seem to
> be the most immediate questions (certainly the ones we've been thinking
> most about any time I've discussed this with anyone):
>
> Has their been any progress on the creation of this layer?

Absolutely.  I think at least some of my mail on the subject have been
bouncing from the lists but the short version is at the end of July
the existing "meta-openembedded" pieces were done in my tree and there
was a list of stuff that needed fixing in migrating the oe-classic
bits into the new meta-networking layer (the list I laid out in my
initial email).  I was on vacation between then and Monday, so
nothing's happened since then but this week I'm back looking at the
best way to handle these older recipes that are in need of love in
order to work with the current meta-oe and we should be good to go.  I
think what's likely to happen is there will be some of them updated
right away and others will be integrated and updated soon after.

-J.

> --
> Christopher Larson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>



-- 
Joe MacDonald
:wq

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Chris Larson]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Joe MacDonald <joe@deserted.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, June 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>>
>> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
>> but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
>> community at large. We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
>> recipes, etc. for networking packages. I'll try to address what seem to
>> be the most immediate questions (certainly the ones we've been thinking
>> most about any time I've discussed this with anyone):
>>
>> Has their been any progress on the creation of this layer?
>
> Absolutely.  I think at least some of my mail on the subject have been
> bouncing from the lists but the short version is at the end of July
> the existing "meta-openembedded" pieces were done in my tree and there
> was a list of stuff that needed fixing in migrating the oe-classic
> bits into the new meta-networking layer (the list I laid out in my
> initial email).  I was on vacation between then and Monday, so
> nothing's happened since then but this week I'm back looking at the
> best way to handle these older recipes that are in need of love in
> order to work with the current meta-oe and we should be good to go.  I
> think what's likely to happen is there will be some of them updated
> right away and others will be integrated and updated soon after.

Sounds good, thanks for the update. Is this repository-in-progress
available somewhere public yet?
-- 
Christopher Larson

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Joe MacDonald]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Joe MacDonald <joe@deserted.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>>>
>>> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
>>> but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
>>> community at large. We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
>>> recipes, etc. for networking packages. I'll try to address what seem to
>>> be the most immediate questions (certainly the ones we've been thinking
>>> most about any time I've discussed this with anyone):
>>>
>>> Has their been any progress on the creation of this layer?
>>
>> Absolutely.  I think at least some of my mail on the subject have been
>> bouncing from the lists but the short version is at the end of July
>> the existing "meta-openembedded" pieces were done in my tree and there
>> was a list of stuff that needed fixing in migrating the oe-classic
>> bits into the new meta-networking layer (the list I laid out in my
>> initial email).  I was on vacation between then and Monday, so
>> nothing's happened since then but this week I'm back looking at the
>> best way to handle these older recipes that are in need of love in
>> order to work with the current meta-oe and we should be good to go.  I
>> think what's likely to happen is there will be some of them updated
>> right away and others will be integrated and updated soon after.
>
> Sounds good, thanks for the update. Is this repository-in-progress
> available somewhere public yet?

Yep, sure is, though I'd discourage using it as a basis for work right
now as I'm not guaranteeing a clean history on it.  It's full of dead
branches and options I'd been working through with Koen.

So now that you know what you're getting into, my current WIP is here:

https://github.com/joeythesaint/meta-oe/tree/meta-networking-reordered-1

You can expect that the top commit (dd48fb590) will not be present at
all in the final version but everything leading up to it will likely
remain unchanged in the final version, I think we're mostly settled on
those being sensible.  Though since this is still a WIP I plan to
rebase the whole branch before sending any kind of pull request.

-- 
Joe MacDonald
:wq

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Joe MacDonald]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Joe MacDonald <joe@deserted.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Joe MacDonald <joe@deserted.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, June 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
>>>> but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
>>>> community at large. We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
>>>> recipes, etc. for networking packages. I'll try to address what seem to
>>>> be the most immediate questions (certainly the ones we've been thinking
>>>> most about any time I've discussed this with anyone):
>>>>
>>>> Has their been any progress on the creation of this layer?
>>>
>>> Absolutely.  I think at least some of my mail on the subject have been
>>> bouncing from the lists but the short version is at the end of July
>>> the existing "meta-openembedded" pieces were done in my tree and there
>>> was a list of stuff that needed fixing in migrating the oe-classic
>>> bits into the new meta-networking layer (the list I laid out in my
>>> initial email).  I was on vacation between then and Monday, so
>>> nothing's happened since then but this week I'm back looking at the
>>> best way to handle these older recipes that are in need of love in
>>> order to work with the current meta-oe and we should be good to go.  I
>>> think what's likely to happen is there will be some of them updated
>>> right away and others will be integrated and updated soon after.
>>
>> Sounds good, thanks for the update. Is this repository-in-progress
>> available somewhere public yet?
>
> Yep, sure is, though I'd discourage using it as a basis for work right
> now as I'm not guaranteeing a clean history on it.  It's full of dead
> branches and options I'd been working through with Koen.
>
> So now that you know what you're getting into, my current WIP is here:
>
> https://github.com/joeythesaint/meta-oe/tree/meta-networking-reordered-1
>
> You can expect that the top commit (dd48fb590) will not be present at
> all in the final version but everything leading up to it will likely
> remain unchanged in the final version, I think we're mostly settled on
> those being sensible.  Though since this is still a WIP I plan to
> rebase the whole branch before sending any kind of pull request.

Oh, and right after sending that I realize that what's currently in my
github tree doesn't have the style cleanups yet (PRIORITY fields,
metadata ordering, etc.) so even the earlier ones still have some
changes coming.  Sorry about that.

-- 
Joe MacDonald
:wq

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Koen Kooi]

Op 22 aug. 2012, om 21:22 heeft Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Joe MacDonald <joe@deserted.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>>> 
>>> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
>>> but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
>>> community at large. We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
>>> recipes, etc. for networking packages. I'll try to address what seem to
>>> be the most immediate questions (certainly the ones we've been thinking
>>> most about any time I've discussed this with anyone):
>>> 
>>> Has their been any progress on the creation of this layer?
>> 
>> Absolutely.  I think at least some of my mail on the subject have been
>> bouncing from the lists but the short version is at the end of July
>> the existing "meta-openembedded" pieces were done in my tree and there
>> was a list of stuff that needed fixing in migrating the oe-classic
>> bits into the new meta-networking layer (the list I laid out in my
>> initial email).  I was on vacation between then and Monday, so
>> nothing's happened since then but this week I'm back looking at the
>> best way to handle these older recipes that are in need of love in
>> order to work with the current meta-oe and we should be good to go.  I
>> think what's likely to happen is there will be some of them updated
>> right away and others will be integrated and updated soon after.
> 
> Sounds good, thanks for the update. Is this repository-in-progress
> available somewhere public yet?

I'd very much welcome a patch creating an empty layer in meta-openembedded with just the README, layer.conf and COPYING.MIT

Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Joe MacDonald]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 22 aug. 2012, om 21:22 heeft Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Joe MacDonald <joe@deserted.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, June 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while now,
>>>> but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to the OE
>>>> community at large. We're thinking about creating a new layer to house
>>>> recipes, etc. for networking packages. I'll try to address what seem to
>>>> be the most immediate questions (certainly the ones we've been thinking
>>>> most about any time I've discussed this with anyone):
>>>>
>>>> Has their been any progress on the creation of this layer?
>>>
>>> Absolutely.  I think at least some of my mail on the subject have been
>>> bouncing from the lists but the short version is at the end of July
>>> the existing "meta-openembedded" pieces were done in my tree and there
>>> was a list of stuff that needed fixing in migrating the oe-classic
>>> bits into the new meta-networking layer (the list I laid out in my
>>> initial email).  I was on vacation between then and Monday, so
>>> nothing's happened since then but this week I'm back looking at the
>>> best way to handle these older recipes that are in need of love in
>>> order to work with the current meta-oe and we should be good to go.  I
>>> think what's likely to happen is there will be some of them updated
>>> right away and others will be integrated and updated soon after.
>>
>> Sounds good, thanks for the update. Is this repository-in-progress
>> available somewhere public yet?
>
> I'd very much welcome a patch creating an empty layer in meta-openembedded with just the README, layer.conf and COPYING.MIT

Easily done!  git-send-emailing it now.

-- 
Joe MacDonald
:wq