On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 15 nov. 2011, om 15:42 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > >>> To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't > >>> use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We > >>> should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than > >>> that where is the problem other than a general objection to > >>> PACKAGECONFIG? > >> > >> It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist. > > > > There are multiple ways of coexisting and the configuration changing > > based on DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't force a choice either. > > It does force a choice, since you don't want to change DISTRO_FEATURES > when distributing binaries. If changing it is safe, then it isn't a > DISTRO_FEATURE.
I'd expect a given distro to be able to figure out in advance whether it intends to have X11 or not? If unsure you leave it present... I really don't see the problem here. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
