> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe MacDonald [mailto:joe_macdon...@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.ashfi...@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 > > >>>> <bia...@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@yoctoproject.org > > >>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -Joe MacDonald. > :wq -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
