Patchwork Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Robert P. J. Day
Date July 24, 2014, 9:10 a.m.
Message ID <alpine.LFD.2.11.1407240509150.1086@localhost>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/76571/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Robert P. J. Day - July 24, 2014, 9:10 a.m.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>

---

  is this the appropriate comment for tarball packaging?
Ross Burton - July 24, 2014, 9:16 a.m.
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
Robert P. J. Day - July 24, 2014, 9:18 a.m.
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
Paul Eggleton - July 24, 2014, 9:59 a.m.
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
Richard Purdie - July 24, 2014, 12:08 p.m.
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

Patch

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"