On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:20:58 +0000
"Zheng, Ruoqin" <zhengrq.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> Hi Andreas!
>     Thank you for your description.
>     And what about samba-server?

It's called "samba". If it's confusing, maybe adding a comment inside the recipe
or to the package summary of "samba" might help.

Regards,
Andreas


> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Zheng Ruoqin
> Nanjing Fujitsu Nanda Software Tech. Co., Ltd.(FNST)
> ADDR.: No.6 Wenzhu Road, Software Avenue,
>        Nanjing, 210012, China
> MAIL : zhengrq.f...@cn.fujistu.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Oberritter [mailto:o...@opendreambox.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 7:14 PM
> To: Zheng, Ruoqin/郑 若钦 <zhengrq.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH] [meta-networking][PATCH] packagegroup-samba: new add
> 
> Hi Zheng,
> 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 03:30:32 +0000
> "Zheng, Ruoqin" <zhengrq.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Andreas!
> >    I have some questions here:
> > 
> >    1. Why don't you just create a samba-client meta package inside the 
> > samba recipe instead?
> >       Well, I don't know how to create a samba-client meta package, and 
> > could you help me?  
> 
> do it the same way you did here, but put it into samba_*.bb, i.e. add 
> ${PN}-client to PACKAGES and create RDEPENDS_${PN}-client.
> 
> You may need to add ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}-client = "1", because the package won't 
> contain any files.
> 
> Don't forget to remove samba-common.
> 
> > 
> >    2. All samba libraries already depend on samba-common, so samba depends 
> > on it indirectly. Therefore this "package group" doesn't seem to be 
> > necessary.
> >        Yes, I found it, thank you.
> >   
> > > +
> > > +SUMMARY_${PN}-ctdb-tests = " samba ctdb-tests"
> > > +RDEPENDS_${PN}-ctdb-tests = "samba-ctdb-tests"
> > > +
> > > +SUMMARY_${PN}-pidl = "samba-pidl"
> > > +RDEPENDS_${PN}-pidl = "samba-pidl"    
> > 
> >    3. These two seem to be unnecessary, too.
> >       Testsuite for samba is unnecessary for the packagegroup, why?
> >       And can you give me a advice about how to deal with samba-pidl?Put it 
> > into client?  
> 
> Put it nowhere. Installing packagegroup-samba-pidl is in no way easier than 
> installing samba-pidl directly. The summary doesn't add any value either.
> 
> The same holds true for samba-ctdb-tests.
> 
> Generally, package groups are meta packages that combine many packages from 
> different recipes. They don't make sense if they install only one package, 
> and they aren't necessary if all used packages come from exactly one recipe.
> 
> Regards,
> Andreas
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Zheng Ruoqin
> > Nanjing Fujitsu Nanda Software Tech. Co., Ltd.(FNST)
> > ADDR.: No.6 Wenzhu Road, Software Avenue,
> >        Nanjing, 210012, China
> > MAIL : zhengrq.f...@cn.fujistu.com
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org 
> > [mailto:openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf 
> > Of Andreas Oberritter
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 9:29 PM
> > To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> > Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH] [meta-networking][PATCH] packagegroup-samba: 
> > new add
> > 
> > Hi Zheng,
> > 
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:33:07 +0800
> > zhengrq <zhengrq.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Add packagegroup for samba, for there are too many rpms in samba and it's 
> > > hard to manage.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Ruoqin <zhengrq.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../packagegroups/packagegroup-samba.bb            | 28 
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644
> > > meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/packagegroups/packagegroup-samba.
> > > bb
> > > 
> > > diff --git
> > > a/meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/packagegroups/packagegroup-sa
> > > mb
> > > a.bb
> > > b/meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/packagegroups/packagegroup-sa
> > > mb
> > > a.bb
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..6177691
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/meta-networking/recipes-connectivity/packagegroups/packagegrou
> > > +++ p-
> > > +++ samba.bb
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> > > +SUMMARY = "samba package groups"
> > > +PV = "1.0"
> > > +PR = "r2"
> > > +
> > > +inherit packagegroup
> > > +
> > > +PROVIDES = "${PACKAGES}"
> > > +PACKAGES = "${PN}-server ${PN}-client ${PN}-ctdb-tests ${PN}-pidl"
> > > +
> > > +SUMMARY_${PN}-client = " samba client"
> > > +RDEPENDS_${PN}-client = "\
> > > +    smbclient \
> > > +    samba-common \
> > > +    winbind \
> > > +    registry-tools \
> > > +    "    
> > 
> > Why don't you just create a samba-client meta package inside the samba 
> > recipe instead?
> >   
> > > +
> > > +SUMMARY_${PN}-server = " samba server"
> > > +RDEPENDS_${PN}-server = "\
> > > +    samba \
> > > +    samba-common \
> > > +    "    
> > 
> > All samba libraries already depend on samba-common, so samba depends on it 
> > indirectly. Therefore this "package group" doesn't seem to be necessary.
> >   
> > > +
> > > +SUMMARY_${PN}-ctdb-tests = " samba ctdb-tests"
> > > +RDEPENDS_${PN}-ctdb-tests = "samba-ctdb-tests"
> > > +
> > > +SUMMARY_${PN}-pidl = "samba-pidl"
> > > +RDEPENDS_${PN}-pidl = "samba-pidl"    
> > 
> > These two seem to be unnecessary, too.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Andreas
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-devel mailing list
> > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Reply via email to