Re: [meta-networking, meta-oe][PATCH 0/9] Move networking recipes to meta-networking

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2724 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:01:14PM -0400, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> [Re: [oe] [meta-networking, meta-oe][PATCH 0/9] Move networking recipes to meta-networking] On 13.04.16 (Tue 14:22) Paul Eggleton wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 16 April 2013 13:30:29 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > Op 16 apr. 2013, om 13:19 heeft Paul Eggleton 
> > <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven:
> > > > On Tuesday 16 April 2013 13:09:46 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > >> These look good to me, but
> > > >> 
> > > >>> iw: move to meta-networking and update
> > > >> 
> > > >> This is receferenced by a packagegroup in meta-oe:
> > > >> 	meta-oe/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-basic.bb:
> > > >> ${@base_contains("DISTRO_FEATURES", "wifi", "iw wpa-supplicant", "", d)}
> > > >> \
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> With the 'meta-oe shall only depend on oe-core' rule,
> > > > 
> > > > Are you sure nothing in meta-oe depends on anything in other layers within
> > > > meta-openembedded already?
> > > 
> > > I can't say for certain, but Martin and I have been very strict about it in
> > > the past. If there are such external dependencies they should be looked at
> > > and fixed.
> > 
> > At some point I don't think this is going to be realistic - what happens if 
> > you have something in meta-oe that's too generic to be put elsewhere and yet 
> > has a dependency on something in meta-multimedia or meta-networking? It will 
> > come up at some point fairly soon.
> > 
> > I can drop the iw patch from this set for the sake of the rest of the patches 
> > if you object to moving it, but we do need to do something about this in the 
> > near future.
> 
> I'm way behind on my meta-networking stuff but finally getting caught up
> and I was wondering if we had run this one to ground.  Martin's already
> merged in most of the other moves and I'm also fine with relocating iw,

I hope you don't mind I did merge them. I never merge changes which are
only for layers with dedicated maintainer, but with this move
overlapping both layers I took them as nice cleanup.

> but I can see the argument in favour of keeping it in meta-oe.  For now
> I'm also planning on merging a couple that didn't get picked up already:
> 
>    f501ecadb6 strongswan: move to meta-networking
>    cdf2bf5654 vsftpd: move from meta-oe to meta-networking and tweak
> 
> I'll also pick up the iw one if there's a consensus that moving it is
> the right thing (or not a terrible thing) to do.

I think the consensus is that iw needs to stay where it is unless stuff
which references it is also moved or changed (that's why I haven't
merged this one).

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]