Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample
PATCH 1/1 Mention package_tar packaging in local.conf.sample
---
is this the appropriate comment for tarball packaging?
meta/conf/local.conf.sample +2 -1
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ MACHINE ??= "qemux86" # - 'package_deb' for debian style deb files # - 'package_ipk' for ipk files are used by opkg (a debian style embedded package manager) # - 'package_rpm' for rpm style packages -# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk" +# - 'package_tar' for tarball packages +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk package_tar" # We default to ipk: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_ipk"
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================meta/conf/local.conf.sample MACHINE ??= "qemux86" · line 82
Quoted 2 lines · Robert P. J. Day
meta/conf/local.conf.sample +2
-0+# - 'package_tar' for tarball packages +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk package_tar"
package_tar is pretty limited (no dependencies, so images don't work)
- is there a good reason to keep it around? If we're going to delete it, now is the time to do it...
Ross
Quoted 7 lines · Ross
meta/conf/local.conf.sample MACHINE ??= "qemux86" · line 82
Quoted 2 lines · Robert P. J. Day
meta/conf/local.conf.sample +2
-0+# - 'package_tar' for tarball packages +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk package_tar"
package_taris pretty limited (no dependencies, so images don't work)
- is there a good reason to keep it around? If we're going to delete it, now is the time to do it...
i'm fine with that, just trying to be consistent. i'm always a big
fan of throwing stuff away.
rday
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================Quoted 7 lines · Ross
Quoted 3 lines · Robert P. J. Day
(quoted diff) +2
-0+# - 'package_tar' for tarball packages +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk
package_tar"
package_taris pretty limited (no dependencies, so images don't work)
- is there a good reason to keep it around? If we're going to delete it, now is the time to do it...
I've really not heard of anyone using it recently. I have at least kept it working over the last little while, and it might possibly be useful on a limited basis if you want the output of certain recipes to be in the form of a tarball; without dependencies though as you say it's of no use beyond that. I'd be fine with dropping it as well if it's simply not going to be used.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 11 lines · Robert P. J. Day
Signed-off-by Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>---
is this the appropriate comment for tarball packaging?
meta/conf/local.conf.sample +0
-0
meta/conf/local.conf.sample MACHINE ??= "qemux86" · line 85
Quoted 9 lines
meta/conf/local.conf.sample +2
-1@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ MACHINE ??= "qemux86" # - 'package_deb' for debian style deb files # - 'package_ipk' for ipk files are used by opkg (a debian style embedded package manager) # - 'package_rpm' for rpm style packages -# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk" +# - 'package_tar' for tarball packages +# E.g.: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_rpm package_deb package_ipk package_tar" # We default to ipk: PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_ipk"
The class is pretty useless, lets leave this one less documented ;-)
I keep thinking we should delete it instead to be honest...
Cheers,
Richard