[oe] [meta-networking][PATCH 4/4] freeradius: add PACKAGECONFIGs

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 6:57 PM Changqing Li <changqing.li at windriver.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/28/19 12:35 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 04:41:50PM +0800, changqing.li at windriver.com wrote:
> >
> >> From: Changqing Li <changqing.li at windriver.com>
> >>
> >> add 3 PACKAGECONFIG
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Changqing Li <changqing.li at windriver.com>
> >> ---
> >>   meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/freeradius/freeradius_3.0.17.bb | 3 +++
> >>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/freeradius/freeradius_3.0.17.bb b/meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/freeradius/freeradius_3.0.17.bb
> >> index c17d56d..cee3b47 100644
> >> --- a/meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/freeradius/freeradius_3.0.17.bb
> >> +++ b/meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/freeradius/freeradius_3.0.17.bb
> >> @@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ PACKAGECONFIG[perl] = "--with-perl=${STAGING_BINDIR_NATIVE}/perl-native/perl --w
> >>   PACKAGECONFIG[python] = "--with-rlm_python --with-rlm-python-bin=${STAGING_BINDIR_NATIVE}/python-native/python --with-rlm-python-include-dir=${STAGING_INCDIR}/${PYTHON_DIR},--without-rlm_python,python-native python"
> >>   PACKAGECONFIG[rest] = "--with-rlm_rest,--without-rlm_rest,curl json-c"
> >>   PACKAGECONFIG[ruby] = "--with-rlm_ruby,--without-rlm_ruby,ruby"
> >> +PACKAGECONFIG[no-ssl] = "--without-openssl,--with-openssl"
> > This is commonly done with 'openssl' as the PACKAGECONFIG flag.
> >
> >> +PACKAGECONFIG[no-rlm-eap-fast] = "--without-rlm_eap_fast,--with-rlm_eap_fast"
> >> +PACKAGECONFIG[no-rlm-eap-pwd] = "--without-rlm_eap_pwd,--with-rlm_eap_pwd"
> > We also don't have any other examples of "no-xxx".  What is the behavior
> > we have here today?  If "enabled" we should put them in the default
> > PACKAGECONFIG instead, imho.
> >
> Hi, Khem
>
> My original idea is default option is enable,  add
> PACKAGECONFIG[disable-xxx] is for
>
> someone who want to disable it by append PACKAGECONFIG.  but if we have the
>
> traditional way  like tom and Adrian said,  I am ok with that way.
>
>

yes please address the review comments, they are valid concerns in this case.

> I noticed that this patch is now on master-next,  so I will send a
> !fixup  of these patches based on master-next
>

master-next is just a CI branch, its meant to collect patches so
people can try and report issues
along with what I do, I drop patches from master-next when there are
issues reported by reviewers or
system.

> branch in case we need to keep the traditional way.   Sorry for the
> inconvenient.
>
>
> --
> BRs
>
> Sandy(Li Changqing)
>