[oe] [meta-oe][meta-networking][PATCH V2 3/3] ntp: Clean up recipes
Paul Eggleton
paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com
Fri Nov 2 13:38:42 UTC 2012
On Friday 02 November 2012 09:07:43 Joe MacDonald wrote:
> [Re: [oe] [meta-oe][meta-networking][PATCH V2 3/3] ntp: Clean up recipes] On
12.11.02 (Fri 09:59) Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 November 2012 13:32:40 Joe MacDonald wrote:
> > > Does it make sense to have both on a system? That is, if you build
> > > ntp-ssl does that imply it will only use SSL for communications? If
> > > that's not the case (which I suspect it isn't, but I haven't checked
> > > myself) then there's not really a strong reason to install both on the
> > > same system. Which then seems fine to provide ntpdate-ssl as the
> > > alternative.
> >
> > I'm not sure that it does. I think the split was made just to avoid
> > bringing in OpenSSL on systems where it was not needed or desired. Phil
> > Blundell (on CC) made the split quite a while ago in OE-Classic - Phil
> > can you comment?
>
> > > Now that I think about it a bit more, maybe a RPROVIDES is appropriate
> > > since ntp and ntpdate are overlapping in a lot of places.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean here... ?
>
> Sorry about that, I've been interleaving writing and thinking, usually
> not a good recipe. :-)
>
> It's been so long since I had to actually pay attention to what's in
> ntp that I'm just getting back clued up on it. I was thinking that it
> should be made explicit in the ntp recipe that it provides ntpdate and
> therefore you would never need to have ntpdate and ntp/ntp-ssl installed
> on the same system at the same time.
>
> So going back to Morgan's thing, I think now that the case of "add
> ntp-ssl and ntpdate" is invalid, and the result should be using ntp-ssl
> to provide ntpdate. As long as that's what is happening with his
> recipe, I'm okay with it. If it's actually dragging in ntp in addition
> to ntp-ssl purely to provide ntpdate, I think we have a problem. And
> nothing should result in ntp[-ssl] and ntpdate (as in the things
> provided by two or more recipes) being on the same system at the same
> time, since ntp provides ntpdate anyway. At least it looks like it does
> on my test build.
I have to say I think that these days this could be better implemented as one
ntp recipe with a PACKAGECONFIG that you can use to enable OpenSSL support if
desired. (At the time the ntp/ntp-ssl split was done, PACKAGECONFIG did not
exist). Then it becomes a distro-level choice as to whether this is enabled as
I believe was originally intended.
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
More information about the Openembedded-devel
mailing list