On 12/1/2020 9:30 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>> I am starting to get a little worried about the direction these >>>> patches >>>> are heading in. How much of the system are we going to split into >>>> individual package per binaries? >>> I am wondering why this is a concern for you? If we keep the old >>> package rdepends on the new ones I see no problem in allowing this >>> granular packaging. >> Taking this to a conclusion its heading towards, most recipes >> generating more than one binary would end up with this splitting code. >> I don't like having large blocks of python in each recipe and heading >> that way means we should probably change approach somehow. >> >> My worry is that simpler recipes are easier to maintain, test and >> upgrade. > Maybe Sinan could try to rework this and move the python code to a > class reducing code duplication?
The problem I'm trying to solve is I only need ps file out of this entire package. Everything else in this package is useless for me. I'm sure no-one wants dead code in their system especially if they are size constrained. Ideal solution would be to have --with/without-foo support upstream that we can configure with PACKAGECONFIG. I'm happy to look at other options if there is an alternative.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#145120): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/145120 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/78625996/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
