From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f46.google.com (mail-qa0-f46.google.com [209.85.216.46]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECFD6F7C6 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:31:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id i13so8208620qae.5 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:31:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=4Vz4j+IN8nitp/D6Bz4FRxM+FUCLRTo/5V7byj4+W1s=; b=FHHGUD2tsiVOst9eOuMpbloo0KB8dMxcDb542fHEPlqhU7tFmnO2SOrDtGOQmO0j9L +yZRpfFZpjopZ7BjsAyKOCLvUNylZRLi5VPTdXqqfzFbVyhZfgen4wErdKLWkZLL6kkM t6I0ndedoQylctx8hdiTV9OPfIdjo5P1jYGDLLdyguKsiAG1WSp+XnIQWw1uptu7y28k MGu0o9Bt13HbnqydZitjDj3ZflSPD9IIRB7kM3BTnlo5nlRP7k8dElPmS/Z2rFxEcT2/ XZa3KBa+LhjcGhIRrgyGTGnW0UsTzer++6LK+l88OJ6s2h+B5ZVicjpeazFqtXT7jHDx gEMg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmc/R31j+kSpsgNPN0kFk8thYt3DYA3ry7goyCNItPS0S0gmwbPgV9wwdXsoEC2C1TaCtT X-Received: by 10.224.75.5 with SMTP id w5mr10219860qaj.52.1396287100034; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:31:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.27.167 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:31:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1396285412.14790.83.camel@ted> References: <1396259888.14790.58.camel@ted> <1396267153.6418.5.camel@firebird.rb.intel.com> <2505811.xE1RLRgDA1@peggleto-mobl5.ger.corp.intel.com> <1396285412.14790.83.camel@ted> From: "Burton, Ross" Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:31:18 +0100 Message-ID: To: Richard Purdie Cc: Paul Eggleton , OE-core Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] core-image-lsb: enforce pam as a needed distro feature X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:31:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 31 March 2014 18:03, Richard Purdie wrote: > I kind of disagree with that, the LSB image can take into account > configuration in other parts of the system. If pam isn't configured, I'm > not sure that should automatically make it completely unbuildable... An image that claims to be LSB compliant but due to not-immediately-obvious DISTRO_FEATURES isn't actually doesn't seem like a good idea to me, fwiw. If the LSB image requires PAM, X11 and so on then it should require the features. Ross