Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] systemd: split modules into packages

[Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>]

Hello Bruno,

On 16.06.2015 20:11, Bottazzini, Bruno wrote:
> Ping
> 
> On Sex, 2015-06-05 at 13:52 -0300, Bottazzini, Bruno wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>> On Ter, 2015-05-19 at 10:18 -0300, Bottazzini, Bruno wrote:
>>> On Qui, 2015-05-14 at 00:41 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>>> Hello Bruno,
>>>>
>>>> On 13.05.2015 23:51, Bruno Bottazzini wrote:
>>>>> +########################################################################
>>>>> +# Aggregation of Split Packages
>>>>> +########################################################################
>>>>> +PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-services-base"
>>>>> +SUMMARY_${PN}-services-base = "Base services aggregation"
>>>>> +ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}-services-base = "1"
>>>>> +RDEPENDS_${PN}-services-base = " \
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be better to use RRECOMMENDS, in order to support
>>>> BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS per image. This would also remove the need to use
>>>> bb.utils.contains, because unavailable recommended packages get ignored
>>>> by the package managers.
>>>
>>> I don't think if we should use RRECOMENDS. 
>>>
>>> There are some packages described in services-base that it is not on the
>>> default PACKAGECONFIG.
>>>
>>> With RRECOMENDS and with out bb.utils.contains, it will install all the
>>> packages that it is described on the recipe and this is not the behavior
>>> we are looking for.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Besides that, I wonder whether ${PN}-services would be a better name,
>>>> because the -base suffix suggests that it contained only the most
>>>> important services.
>>>
>>> Sure, we can change it.
>>>

I guess your patch wasn't applied, because your last answer let expect a
follow-up patch.

There may be other reasons I don't know about (complexity for example).
Note that I'm not the maintainer of this recipe. I just shared my
thoughts as a user.

Regards,
Andreas