| Submitter | Paul Eggleton |
|---|---|
| Date | Sept. 3, 2012, 10:30 a.m. |
| Message ID | <8e6521856490f08291c3c01a3b16e5f270fe6bac.1346668109.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/35689/ |
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:30 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > openswan was only ever provided in unmaintained form in meta-demoapps > which has been removed, so we never really provided it in OE-Core. Isn't packagegroup-base-ipsec rather useless without it? p.
On Monday 03 September 2012 11:35:24 Phil Blundell wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:30 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > openswan was only ever provided in unmaintained form in meta-demoapps > > which has been removed, so we never really provided it in OE-Core. > > Isn't packagegroup-base-ipsec rather useless without it? If you ignore the RRECOMMENDS line that follows, yes. Cheers, Paul
On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:37 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Monday 03 September 2012 11:35:24 Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:30 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > > openswan was only ever provided in unmaintained form in meta-demoapps > > > which has been removed, so we never really provided it in OE-Core. > > > > Isn't packagegroup-base-ipsec rather useless without it? > > If you ignore the RRECOMMENDS line that follows, yes. Is there a meaningful use-case where installing kernel-module-ipsec without any user-space support is a desirable thing to do? And, even if the answer is yes, is it really valuable to have a packagegroup-base-ipsec which just recommends a single other package without doing anything else? p.
On Monday 03 September 2012 11:50:01 Phil Blundell wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:37 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Monday 03 September 2012 11:35:24 Phil Blundell wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:30 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > > > openswan was only ever provided in unmaintained form in meta-demoapps > > > > which has been removed, so we never really provided it in OE-Core. > > > > > > Isn't packagegroup-base-ipsec rather useless without it? > > > > If you ignore the RRECOMMENDS line that follows, yes. > > Is there a meaningful use-case where installing kernel-module-ipsec > without any user-space support is a desirable thing to do? And, even if > the answer is yes, is it really valuable to have a > packagegroup-base-ipsec which just recommends a single other package > without doing anything else? The idea is supposed to be that just having "ipsec" in DISTRO_FEATURES brings in what we can to support IPsec, assuming your image uses packagegroup-base that is. I'd be more than happy if we went the other way and decided that IPsec was something worth fully supporting in OE-Core, and brought in the corresponding user-space bits as a result; but that's somewhat outside of the scope of this work. Cheers, Paul
Op 3 sep. 2012, om 12:54 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven: > On Monday 03 September 2012 11:50:01 Phil Blundell wrote: >> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:37 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>> On Monday 03 September 2012 11:35:24 Phil Blundell wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:30 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>>>> openswan was only ever provided in unmaintained form in meta-demoapps >>>>> which has been removed, so we never really provided it in OE-Core. >>>> >>>> Isn't packagegroup-base-ipsec rather useless without it? >>> >>> If you ignore the RRECOMMENDS line that follows, yes. >> >> Is there a meaningful use-case where installing kernel-module-ipsec >> without any user-space support is a desirable thing to do? And, even if >> the answer is yes, is it really valuable to have a >> packagegroup-base-ipsec which just recommends a single other package >> without doing anything else? > > The idea is supposed to be that just having "ipsec" in DISTRO_FEATURES brings > in what we can to support IPsec, assuming your image uses packagegroup-base > that is. Isn't that an IMAGE_FEATURE?
On Monday 03 September 2012 18:25:35 Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 3 sep. 2012, om 12:54 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven: > > On Monday 03 September 2012 11:50:01 Phil Blundell wrote: > >> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:37 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > >>> On Monday 03 September 2012 11:35:24 Phil Blundell wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:30 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > >>>>> openswan was only ever provided in unmaintained form in meta-demoapps > >>>>> which has been removed, so we never really provided it in OE-Core. > >>>> > >>>> Isn't packagegroup-base-ipsec rather useless without it? > >>> > >>> If you ignore the RRECOMMENDS line that follows, yes. > >> > >> Is there a meaningful use-case where installing kernel-module-ipsec > >> without any user-space support is a desirable thing to do? And, even if > >> the answer is yes, is it really valuable to have a > >> packagegroup-base-ipsec which just recommends a single other package > >> without doing anything else? > > > > The idea is supposed to be that just having "ipsec" in DISTRO_FEATURES > > brings in what we can to support IPsec, assuming your image uses > > packagegroup-base that is. > > Isn't that an IMAGE_FEATURE? It has been implemented within DISTRO_FEATURES since long ago in the OE- Classic days. We could move it to IMAGE_FEATURES or simply have it as a package group on its own, however the minute we have something that requires enabling/disabling IPsec at configure time it will break. A cursory google search suggests this is not an unlikely situation although not one we actually face right now. Cheers, Paul
On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 11:54 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > The idea is supposed to be that just having "ipsec" in DISTRO_FEATURES brings > in what we can to support IPsec, assuming your image uses packagegroup-base > that is. > > I'd be more than happy if we went the other way and decided that IPsec was > something worth fully supporting in OE-Core, and brought in the corresponding > user-space bits as a result; but that's somewhat outside of the scope of this > work. Yeah, fair enough. I would also like to see proper IPsec support in oe-core but, if we aren't going to do that, it seems as though this packagegroup should just be deleted (even if temporarily). Having a half-baked "ipsec" task which doesn't actually serve any useful purpose seems like it would just be annoying. p.
Patch
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-base.bb b/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-base.bb index 7e2bd69..c0f0f52 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-base.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-base.bb @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ RRECOMMENDS_packagegroup-base-ppp = "\ kernel-module-slhc" RDEPENDS_packagegroup-base-ipsec = "\ - openswan" + " RRECOMMENDS_packagegroup-base-ipsec = "\ kernel-module-ipsec"
openswan was only ever provided in unmaintained form in meta-demoapps which has been removed, so we never really provided it in OE-Core. Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> --- .../packagegroups/packagegroup-base.bb | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)