[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-ppc denzil] cryptodev kernel module recipe

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
> <B29882 at freescale.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Otavio Salvador
>> <otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
>>> <B29882 at freescale.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You made the same mistake reveiwing this Darren did... these are NOT
>>>>>> in our recipe they are in the projects Makefile that we don't control.
>>>>>> We are just patching up the Makefile a bit so it works properly and
>>>>>> don't want to redefine variables this project has been using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH this patch needs an upstream-status and also needs to be sent upstream.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I know it is inside of the project Makefile however you're
>>>>> patching it anyway so better to make it us the standards and send
>>>>> upstream.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine, but I would not let that hold up this patch if the author
>>>> did not want to pursue getting upstream to change such things. ;)
>>>
>>> This recipe is not target to meta-fsl-ppc, is it? It seems to fit
>>> meta-openembedded.
>>
>> Well, the maintainer there would have the final say, but I think
>> changing an upstream projects stuff should not effect it's acceptance
>> (into meta-oe or meta-fsl-ppc)
>
> I am not in position to nack something for meta-fsl-ppc. In meta-oe I
> am in some areas but not in crypto packages; however meta-oe
> discussion is off-topic here.
>
> My intention to comment on the recipe was to help. I noticed something
> that had an alternative solution and seemed easy to improve it as it
> was going to add a patch for Makefile so change one or two lines
> wouldn't be a big deal ...

I'm just saying that the change you requested requires convincing
upstream to accept a change and might require lots of other bits to be
changed not limited to other build systems and/or documentation.

I don't think that onus should be placed on a recipe author. That
being said, I think what you suggested is probably the right thing to
do but sometimes other priorities will come first ;)

-M