[PATCH] Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample

[PATCH] Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample

[Robert P. J. Day]

Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>

---

  is this the appropriate comment for tarball packaging?

diff --git a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
index 555f8db..a200002 100644
--- a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
+++ b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ MACHINE ??= "qemux86"
 #  - 'package_deb' for debian style deb files
 #  - 'package_ipk' for ipk files are used by opkg (a debian style embedded package manager)
 #  - 'package_rpm' for rpm style packages
-# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk"
+#  - 'package_tar' for tarball packages
+# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk package_tar"
 # We default to ipk:
 PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_ipk"


-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [PATCH] Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample

[Burton, Ross]

On 24 July 2014 10:10, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> +#  - 'package_tar' for tarball packages
> +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk package_tar"

package_tar is pretty limited (no dependencies, so images don't work)
- is there a good reason to keep it around?  If we're going to delete
it, now is the time to do it...

Ross

Re: [PATCH] Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Burton, Ross wrote:

> On 24 July 2014 10:10, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > +#  - 'package_tar' for tarball packages
> > +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk package_tar"
>
> package_tar is pretty limited (no dependencies, so images don't work)
> - is there a good reason to keep it around?  If we're going to delete
> it, now is the time to do it...

  i'm fine with that, just trying to be consistent. i'm always a big
fan of throwing stuff away.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [PATCH] Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample

[Paul Eggleton]

On Thursday 24 July 2014 10:16:02 Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 24 July 2014 10:10, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > +#  - 'package_tar' for tarball packages
> > +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk
> > package_tar"
> package_tar is pretty limited (no dependencies, so images don't work)
> - is there a good reason to keep it around?  If we're going to delete
> it, now is the time to do it...

I've really not heard of anyone using it recently. I have at least kept it 
working over the last little while, and it might possibly be useful on a 
limited basis if you want the output of certain recipes to be in the form of a 
tarball; without dependencies though as you say it's of no use beyond that. 
I'd be fine with dropping it as well if it's simply not going to be used.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH] Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 05:10 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
> 
> ---
> 
>   is this the appropriate comment for tarball packaging?
> 
> diff --git a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> index 555f8db..a200002 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> +++ b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> @@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ MACHINE ??= "qemux86"
>  #  - 'package_deb' for debian style deb files
>  #  - 'package_ipk' for ipk files are used by opkg (a debian style embedded package manager)
>  #  - 'package_rpm' for rpm style packages
> -# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk"
> +#  - 'package_tar' for tarball packages
> +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk package_tar"
>  # We default to ipk:
>  PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_ipk"
> 

The class is pretty useless, lets leave this one less documented ;-)

I keep thinking we should delete it instead to be honest...

Cheers,

Richard