From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.dream-property.net (mail.dream-property.net [82.149.226.172]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD8665C78 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:09:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95FBD3155F7D; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:09:38 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.dream-property.net Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.dream-property.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id CLdu-ngxUpU2; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:09:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.22.22.61] (55d44892.access.ecotel.net [85.212.72.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 282A33155F42; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:09:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5580746F.8000305@opendreambox.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:09:35 +0200 From: Andreas Oberritter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leandro Dorileo , Bruno Bottazzini , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <1431553871-23972-1-git-send-email-bruno.bottazzini@intel.com> <1431553871-23972-4-git-send-email-bruno.bottazzini@intel.com> <5553D30E.9010201@opendreambox.org> <5580690B.9070908@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <5580690B.9070908@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] systemd: split modules into packages X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:09:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Leandro, On 16.06.2015 20:20, Leandro Dorileo wrote: > On 05/13/2015 07:41 PM, 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. > > > In the end, isn't it just a different approach? a different way of > doing the same thing? No. Although recommended packages get installed by default, just like depended-upon packages, the difference is that you can choose to uninstall these packages selectively or to disable automatic installation using "BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS". If you choose this route, then it doesn't make a difference whether you use bb.utils.contains(...) for each package or not when declaring the relationship between packages (unless you keep old packages on your update feeds). I just mentioned that, because the patch is already hard to read and any simplification in syntax may be a plus. I don't think it's important though. > By the way, from my point of view, semantically > we're saying "we want a given package feature" besides the "we want a > given distro feature", don't you think? I can't follow you, sorry. At this point, PACKAGECONFIG already determined which files got built, installed and packaged. I fail to connect this to distro features in this context, besides its use for sane defaults of the PACKAGECONFIG variable. Regards, Andreas