On 11/01/12 18:32, Joe MacDonald wrote: > [Re: [oe] [meta-oe][meta-networking][PATCH V2 3/3] ntp: Clean up recipes] On > 12.11.01 (Thu 17:19) Paul Eggleton wrote: > >> On Thursday 01 November 2012 17:09:59 Little, Morgan wrote: >>> My rational behind splitting like that is if it is just ntpdate and you try >>> to add ntp-ssl and ntpdate it will use ntp to provide ntpdate. It could be >>> change add RPROVIDES so ntp will provide ntpdate and ntp-ssl provides a >>> uniquely named version. >> The ssl version could be ntpdate-ssl if it needs to be unique. I think >> originally though these recipes weren't intended to be built side-by-side - >> rather they were mutually exclusive and the distro would make a choice as to >> which one was built. > Hmm, good point. > > 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. > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel Are you thinking of ntp providing ntpdate then? In my mind at least, this makes sense, as ntp seems able to do whatever ntpdate does, so I don't really see the rational of having both on the same system.
- Martin _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel