[oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] openflow: Add latest from git

[Laszlo Papp]

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
> > 1) The version in meta-virtualization is quite old. It is basically from
> 2009,
> > and a lot of things has changed since then.
>
> And that was on purpose, there are some tight bindings to SDN and hence why
> it is in meta-virtualization, and not a valid reason to not contact the
> layer
> maintainers directly, have a discussion and not set the update to the
> current
> layer.
>

I do not understand why I would need to contact a foo layer maintainer when
I think a recipe has not much to do with foo.


> If you would have asked, you would have been told that updates are pending
> with bindings that need to stay in lock step with other parts of meta-virt.
>

Sorry, but how is this relevant? It is an extremely old recipe, and should
not be used. Moreover, this should not block the non-ancient users at all,
which is probably the majority.


> > 2) More importantly, this software is more like for networking rather
> than
> > virtualization, so I think it was misplaced.
>
> I disagree, so for now meta-virt is going to keep it's variants of the
> recipes and
> we need to have an actual discussion to figure out the best way forward.
>

,,, and I disagree with you. Read the specification for openflow, please. I
fail to understand how it has anything to do with virtualization.
Seriously, this is a software for networking devices. That is, exactly the
main purpose what meta-networking is trying to achieve: aiding the
development for networking devices. As for me, it is totally
non-comprehensive why a networking specification and the relevant
implementation would be in meta-virtualization rather than meta-networking.

Not to mention, I do not understand why you are trying to set a straw man
in here. The discussion you are "requesting" is exactly what this thread is
meant to be. So, I think you are simply incorrect IMHO. :-)

Cheers,
Laszlo