>> Subject: Re: [yocto] [meta-selinux][PATCH] swig is in meta-oe, remove this
>> copy
>>
>> On 22 February 2016 at 14:51, Radzykewycz, T (Radzy)
>> mailto:ra...@windriver.com>> wrote:
>> It's easy enough to update the one in meta-selinux, if the decision
> From: Burton, Ross [ross.bur...@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:10 AM
> To: Radzykewycz, T (Radzy)
> Cc: Hatle, Mark; yocto@yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [yocto] [meta-selinux][PATCH] swig is in meta-oe, remove this
&g
On 22 February 2016 at 14:51, Radzykewycz, T (Radzy)
wrote:
> It's easy enough to update the one in meta-selinux, if the decision is
> to keep the duplicate. I have a 3.0.6 => 3.0.8 update ready to upload
> to meta-oe, and I can do meta-selinux at the same time.
>
In master at least, swig isn't
It's easy enough to update the one in meta-selinux, if the decision is
to keep the duplicate. I have a 3.0.6 => 3.0.8 update ready to upload
to meta-oe, and I can do meta-selinux at the same time.
From: Mark Hatle [mark.ha...@windriver.com]
Sent: Monday,
A more recent version of swig is in meta-oe, and the local
version does not seem to provide any additional functionality or
security features. So best to just use the one in meta-oe and
eliminate duplication.
Signed-off-by: T.O. Radzy Radzykewycz
---
recipes-devtools/swig/swig.inc
On 2/22/16 10:19 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:58:44PM +, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> On 22 February 2016 at 15:33, Joe MacDonald
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also not against removing the local copy (I don't think it adds
>>> anything to the layer and occasionally causes headaches),
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:58:44PM +, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 22 February 2016 at 15:33, Joe MacDonald
> wrote:
>
> > I'm also not against removing the local copy (I don't think it adds
> > anything to the layer and occasionally causes headaches), but I really
> > don't want to make meta-sel
[Re: [yocto] [meta-selinux][PATCH] swig is in meta-oe, remove this copy] On
16.02.22 (Mon 15:58) Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2016 at 15:33, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>
> I'm also not against removing the local copy (I don't think it adds
> anything to t
On 02/22/2016 10:33 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> [Re: [meta-selinux][PATCH] swig is in meta-oe, remove this copy] On 16.02.22
> (Mon 08:40) Mark Hatle wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/16 4:59 PM, T.O. Radzy Radzykewycz wrote:
>>> A more recent version of swig is in meta-oe, and the local
>>> version does not se
On 22 February 2016 at 15:33, Joe MacDonald
wrote:
> I'm also not against removing the local copy (I don't think it adds
> anything to the layer and occasionally causes headaches), but I really
> don't want to make meta-selinux dependent on meta-oe components, so I
> guess I'm voting for keeping
[Re: [meta-selinux][PATCH] swig is in meta-oe, remove this copy] On 16.02.22
(Mon 08:40) Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 2/19/16 4:59 PM, T.O. Radzy Radzykewycz wrote:
> > A more recent version of swig is in meta-oe, and the local
> > version does not seem to provide any additional functionality or
> > se
On 2/19/16 4:59 PM, T.O. Radzy Radzykewycz wrote:
> A more recent version of swig is in meta-oe, and the local
> version does not seem to provide any additional functionality or
> security features. So best to just use the one in meta-oe and
> eliminate duplication.
>
> Signed-off-by: T.O. Radzy
12 matches
Mail list logo
