Patchwork [15/28] packagegroup-base: remove openswan from packagegroup-base-ipsec

login
register
mail settings
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

Paul Eggleton - Sept. 3, 2012, 10:30 a.m.
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(-)
Phil Blundell - Sept. 3, 2012, 10:35 a.m.
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.
Paul Eggleton - Sept. 3, 2012, 10:37 a.m.
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
Phil Blundell - Sept. 3, 2012, 10:50 a.m.
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.
Paul Eggleton - Sept. 3, 2012, 10:54 a.m.
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
Koen Kooi - Sept. 3, 2012, 4:25 p.m.
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?
Paul Eggleton - Sept. 3, 2012, 4:34 p.m.
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
Phil Blundell - Sept. 4, 2012, 10:33 a.m.
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"