Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> writes: >> it would be nice when the decision to make the init manager a distribution >> feature will be reverted to the old oe-meta mechanism. > > The trouble is that by making it an "image feature", people will > expect *everything* to work properly and to be able to have fully > functional sysvinit and systemd variants of images.
I do not see an obvious reason why fully functional sysvinit, systemd and perhaps upstart image variants based on the same distribution/package set are impossible. Of course, not "everything" will work. But initmgr being a distribution feature makes some things completely impossible. > We already see this expectation. IMO, removal of features just to lower expectations is the completely wrong way. > Trying to explain to people what the limitations are, what is expected > to work and what isn't will be difficult. OpenEmbedded is not an end-user distribution but for people who are willing to invest some learning effort. Trying to limit ourself on the lowest common ground is not desirable imo. > For that reason I'd rather see this done in a different way, for > example blacklisting the problematic systemd dependencies at image > generation time with some kind of stronger BAD_RECOMMENDS code. Assuming we are able to break the hard dependencies, what is with package scripts which require programs, files or directories from these deps? Do we need a way to differ between good and bad script failures then? Sounds extremely hacky and fragile... Enrico _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
