From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UbnyQ-0007na-Kf for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:19:11 +0200 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2013 01:01:00 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,660,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="240653566" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.238]) ([10.255.12.238]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2013 01:00:57 -0700 Message-ID: <51909DB8.3060407@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:00:56 +0300 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Eggleton References: <1368189198-1294-1-git-send-email-jukka.rissanen@linux.intel.com> <518FB7F9.2020102@linux.intel.com> <1368384890.16243.79.camel@pb-ThinkPad-R50e> <3529451.hQA8zCVn47@helios> In-Reply-To: <3529451.hQA8zCVn47@helios> Cc: Otavio Salvador , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Enable VPN support in ConnMan 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, 13 May 2013 08:19:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/12/2013 10:55 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Sunday 12 May 2013 19:54:50 Phil Blundell wrote: >> On Sun, 2013-05-12 at 08:40 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: >>> On 05/12/2013 06:27 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>> I think so, it'd be good to have it in oe-core and allow use of vpn :) >>> >>> I would like to see what the full dependency set looks like for these, >>> clearly there is the vpnc, openvpn, l2tp and pptp recipes, but what else >>> and what licenses are they under. >> >> I don't think we necessarily want openvpn, l2tpd and suchlike in >> oe-core. None of those things seem very "core" to me (in an embedded >> context) and testing them seems like it would be a bit of a challenge. > > I agree, these don't belong in OE-Core. We already have them in meta- > networking. > This is what I get for replying to an email while traveling overseas and not being 100% clear about my points. I was more interested in the dependencies then actually thinking about including them in OE-Core,that was not my intent. This would would allow us to better understand if those recipes not in meta-networking could be moved from meta-oe to meta-networking. Currently, I think vpnc and pptp are in meta-networking, not the other 2. >> Equally, we certainly don't want to have dependencies in oe-core >> pointing to packages in meta-oe or any other layer, since this would >> make it impossible to test oe-core in isolation. So I would be inclined >> to say that the right way to deal with this is for those connman bits to >> go in a .bbappend which lives in the same layer as the recipes in >> question. > > That doesn't work well for software layers - it is not a good thing for > various recipes to get rebuilt just because you add meta-oe to your > configuration for example. > > The protocol we've established is to add PACKAGECONFIG options to enable the > dependencies but have them disabled by default; these can be enabled as > desired in distro or local configuration when the layer satisfying the > dependency is also enabled. > This is correct and I talked with RP about this to verify, having these kind of dependencies use PACKAGECONFIG and being disabled by default in OE-Core make sense and is vaild recipe, a Distro or local configuration can then enable and require the additional layers whether it's meta-oe or meta-networking as needed. Sau! > Cheers, > Paul >