[yocto] [PATCH 0/2] Add some recipes

[Bian, Naimeng]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe MacDonald [mailto:Joe_MacDonald at mentor.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Alexandru Vaduva
> Subject: Re: [yocto] [PATCH 0/2] Add some recipes
> 
> [Re: [yocto] [PATCH 0/2] Add some recipes] On 14.12.02 (Tue 20:48) Alexandru
> Vaduva wrote:
> 
> > Guys, lets keep Bian in the loop. though, so he does not loos the
> > thread information.
> > So to conclude:
> > 1.) one of us(or anyone in the community) should find the time to
> > investigate if only one multipath tools recipe is applicable and if
> > that is the case keep one in the meta-oe, eventually update it.
> > Since it it related to meta-cgl could take a step forward on this
> > because there could be some bbappends applicable for meta-cgl there,
> > but it will take 2/3 weeks until I will be able to do this. So anyone
> > else interested is welcomed to do it if they are in a hurry.
> 
> I don't think anyone is in a hurry, but I'll be sure to send out a heads-up
> if I find time to start working on this in the next week or so.
> I think it's yours, though, Alex, unless Bian is going to follow up on it again.
> 
> > 2.) We kind of torn apart Bian`s patches and maybe he will not be so
> > willing to do redo the patch for drdb, Joe will you be able to do the
> > required changes for making sure his patch can be integrated inside
> meta-networking.
> >
> > Thank you for your time and patience.
> 
> All things being equal, I would rather integrate a patch from Bian than do it
> myself both from a practical point of view and because I always prefer to have
> more contributors.  So Bian, this is my saying that if you're willing to do
> another version of drbd updated based on the comments received so far and want
> to submit it to the meta-networking tree, I'd be happy to have it.
> 

The drbd patch had been merged into meta-openembedded/meta-oe/recipes-extended/ some days before.
Is't necessary to move it from meta-oe to meta-networking.
It looks like that meta-networking is more suitable than meta-oe, 
so, i will send a new patch for meta-networking, and get rid of the meta-oe one.

Thanks
 Bian

> If not, I understand, and the remainder of us can sort it out, I'm sure, but
> my first instinct is to wait to see if the original submitter is interested
> in pursuing this.
> 
> -J.
> 
> >
> >
> > Alex Vaduva
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:33 PM, Bruce Ashfield
> > <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 14-12-02 03:17 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> > > [Re: [yocto] [PATCH 0/2] Add some recipes] On 14.12.02 (Tue 14:49)
> > > Bruce
> > Ashfield wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 14-12-02 02:37 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> > >>> [Re: [yocto] [PATCH 0/2] Add some recipes] On 14.12.02 (Tue 14:03)
> > Alexandru Vaduva wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hello Bian,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Did you know that the multipath tools recipe was also available
> > >>>> inside the meta-oe and meta-virtualization?
> > >>>> I do not have any problems with it being available in meta-cgl.
> > >>>> I just
> > wanted
> > >>>> to hear other opinions because I would like to make sure we do
> > >>>> not get to
> > that
> > >>>> point where we keep various versions of various recipes in a
> > >>>> variety of
> > places.
> > >>>> It will be a nightmare to work with them in the future.
> > >>>
> > >>> I completely agree, and I that's mostly the consensus of the community.
> > >>> Since meta-cgl already has dependencies on both
> > >>> meta-virtualization and meta-oe, I think it makes the most sense
> > >>> to try to keep updates for the multipath recipes in one or both of
> > >>> those layers.  My recommendation would be to update the meta-oe
> > >>> one as it has broader applicability, but of course that's up to
> > >>> the submitter and the layer maintainers to decide.  It may be that
> > >>> it's appropriate to maintain a bbappend for the recipe in
> > >>> meta-cgl, but I think it'd be good to send it for inclusion in meta-oe
> first.
> > >>
> > >> I'm with Joe on this one.
> > >>
> > >> I only did a really quick check on the history of the two copies
> > >> that we have, but I see the meta-virt variant was added in January
> > >> 2013 and what could be the first version in meta-oe in March the same year.
> > >
> > > I actually intended to say "update the meta-oe one as it has broader
> > > applicability and if you're feeling ambitious, send the same update
> > > to meta-virtualization" since I thought meta-virt didn't have
> > > dependencies on meta-oe and I can see an argument in favour of
> > > keeping a separate recipe if you're keeping the layer contained.
> > > But it looks like that's not the case, so consolidation makes sense here.
> >
> > Yep, there are dependencies on meta-oe where it makes sense, or if
> > there's a package in meta-virt that isn't particularly twitchy about
> > versions and update cadence.
> >
> > >
> > >> The layer index may not have been as helpful back then (but
> > >> honestly I can't recall) .. either way we failed to coordinate as a
> > >> wider community and managed to end up with two different recipes in the
> layers.
> > >>
> > >> There's no sense making this any worse than it already is, so I'd
> > >> say that we could spend the time looking at the two (three?)
> > >> recipes, and get a consolidated variant in meta-oe, and I'd be
> > >> happy to drop the one in meta-virtualization and bbappend the same way
> that Joe suggests.
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts ? We should figure out if someone is going to take a crack
> > >> at it, so we don't all go do the same thing :)
> > >
> > > It's not on my to-do list, so don't worry about me running in parallel.
> > > iscsi was (and is again) the only meta-networking one and libcap-ng
> > > (as discussed with Armin the other day) and swig are the meta-selinux ones.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds good.
> >
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > > -J.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Bruce
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Just my thoughts on it.
> > >>> -J.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Once again, just to make it clear. I am ok with the patches, I
> > >>>> will merge
> > all
> > >>>> three of them (corosync, multipath and drbd) but I just wanted to
> > >>>> make
> > sure you
> > >>>> took this into consideration.
> > >>>> Also I like the idea of having drbd recipe inside and the fact
> > >>>> that you
> > like to
> > >>>> get involved in this initiative.
> > >>>> Hope to hear more from you and also that I will be able to help more.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Alex Vaduva
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:07 AM, Bian Naimeng
> > >>>> <biannm at cn.fujitsu.com
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Bian Naimeng (2):
> > >>>>    [meta-cgl] device-mapper-multipath: add recipe
> > >>>>    [meta-cgl]drbd: add recipe
> > >>>>
> > >>>> .../device-mapper-multipath/multipathd.init.patch  | 12 +++++
> > >>>> .../device-mapper-multipath_0.5.0.bb              | 53
> > ++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>> meta-cgl-common/recipes-cgl/drbd/drbd/drbd.service | 12 +++++
> > >>>> meta-cgl-common/recipes-cgl/drbd/drbd_8.4.4.bb    | 57
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>> 4 files changed, 134 insertions(+) create mode 100644
> > >>>> meta-cgl-common/recipes-cgl/device-mapper-multipath/
> > >>>> device-mapper-multipath/multipathd.init.patch
> > >>>> create mode 100644
> > >>>> meta-cgl-common/recipes-cgl/device-mapper-multipath/
> > >>>> device-mapper-multipath_0.5.0.bb
> > >>>> create mode 100644
> > >>>> meta-cgl-common/recipes-cgl/drbd/drbd/drbd.service
> > >>>> create mode 100644 meta-cgl-common/recipes-cgl/drbd/drbd_8.4.4.bb
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> 1.9.1
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> yocto mailing list
> > >>>> yocto at yoctoproject.org
> > >>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> -Joe MacDonald.
> :wq