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 1UCTyy-0003Lb-Ud for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:55:10 +0100 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2013 03:38:36 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,778,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="208525108" Received: from lpalcu-linux (HELO [10.237.105.165]) ([10.237.105.165]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2013 03:38:34 -0800 Message-ID: <513487B9.8000502@intel.com> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:38:33 +0200 From: Laurentiu Palcu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Jansa References: <1362393439-23933-1-git-send-email-laurentiu.palcu@intel.com> <1362394572.29587.10.camel@ted> <20130304111337.GG3268@jama> In-Reply-To: <20130304111337.GG3268@jama> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH] sstate.bbclass: consider postinstall dependencies too 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, 04 Mar 2013 11:55:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/04/2013 01:13 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 10:56:12AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 11:51 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: >>> Shouldn't this list be defined in layer.conf like >>> SIGGEN_EXCLUDERECIPES_ABISAFE, so that other layers can extend that >>> list? >> >> I'm hoping we only have very small list of these problematic >> dependencies. If we end up with a large number of them then yes, we'd >> need to abstract it but I'd prefer to avoid that unless proven >> necessary. >> >> Is there a specific case you have in mind? > > Isn't systemd-systemctl-native another candidate to be included? > It looks like it should be in the list... I'll resend a new version. Thanks, Laurentiu