[OE-core] [oe-core][PATCH 1/2] ifupdown: import recipe

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 13:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> To put this another way, I think it is probably reasonable that we
>> >> should be able to build an image from OE-Core with basic functionality
>> >> like networking without busybox?
>> >
>> > That's what I'd support. If everything you need for the functionality with busy
>> > box is in oe-core, to me, it doesn't make sense to go outside core to get that
>> > same functionality without busybox.
>>
>> irrespective of this change. I see yet another configuration with this
>> into OE-core, overall OE-Core should get smaller
>> and case does not sound convincing to me. You dont want to use busybox
>> in a fairly large image which has other GPLv2 software in
>> it. Thats fine but doesnt look like a common usecase to me
>
> Nobody mentioned GPLv2, that isn't relevant here.
>
> I have heard OE being dismissed since it can't produce an image without
> busybox in it. The implication is we can't build "big" Linux, only small
> embedded things. The pieces we need busybox for are tiny and should be
> easy to replace (like this does).
>
> So I can see a fairly compelling argument for OE-Core to be able to
> generate a busybox free image with standard functionality just from a PR
> perspective. From what I gather we have people willing to test and
> maintain it too...

If people were demanding it, it would have been moved for
meta-networking ages ago, it seems it is not the case.

So my vote is:

 - move to meta-networking
 - for 2.1 we see if it goes to core or not

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750