On 05/02/2013 09:52 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 12:31 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
On 04/30/2013 05:30 AM, Andreas Müller wrote:
as discussed in [1-2]
[1]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2013-April/039025.html
[2]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2013-April/039027.html
Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzelt...@googlemail.com>
---
meta/recipes-sato/images/core-image-sato.bb | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-sato/images/core-image-sato.bb
b/meta/recipes-sato/images/core-image-sato.bb
index e3246d2..76abb17 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-sato/images/core-image-sato.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-sato/images/core-image-sato.bb
@@ -8,4 +8,4 @@ LICENSE = "MIT"
inherit core-image
-IMAGE_INSTALL += "packagegroup-core-x11-sato-games"
+IMAGE_INSTALL += "packagegroup-core-x11-sato-games udev-extraconf"
I believe that we should also have the udev-extraconf added to the
core-image-lsb, I will add a follow-on patch for that.
I'll take changes removing the core dependency however I think one of
the packagegroups ideally needs this addition, not such which one
though.
After looking at this again, I think it might be more complex, do we
want the extraconf files unconditionally in for both sysvinit and
systemd? There are 2 packagegroups where it would make sense to have
them for sysvinit based system to have similar behavior as before
systemd: packagegroup-core-basic (which feeds the lsb images) and
packagegroup-core-x11-sato. It may need to be anonymous code that
checks for systemd as the udev provider.
Thoughts?
Sau!
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
