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

[Joe MacDonald <Joe.MacDonald@windriver.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3175 bytes --]

[Re: [oe] [meta-networking, meta-oe][PATCH 0/9] Move networking recipes to meta-networking] On 13.04.29 (Mon 20:45) Martin Jansa wrote:

> 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.

Not at all!  I appreciated you picking them up for me.

> > 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).

Sure, that makes sense.  We'll leave iw where it is, then, and if it
really makes sense to relocate it into meta-networking in the future,
we'll take a wider view.

Thanks.

-- 
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq

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