On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le Fri, 31 May 2013 13:23:29 -0300, > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Le Fri, 31 May 2013 12:04:11 -0300, > > > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Le Fri, 31 May 2013 12:00:08 -0300, > > > > > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le Fri, 31 May 2013 10:18:44 -0300, > > > > > > > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Eric Bénard < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - this allow to build qt5 with OpenGL ES support for i.MX5 > and > > > > > i.MX6 > > > > > > > > > - tested on i.MX51, i.MX53 and i.MX6Q > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Bénard <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase/mx5/qeglfshooks_imx5.cpp | 105 > > > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_5.0.2.bbappend | 68 > > > > > +++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thinking more about it, I think we should put these inside a > > > meta-qt5 > > > > > > > > directory so we know what will be 'included'. Otherwse we may > > > need to > > > > > > > pick > > > > > > > > every file depending on each layer and it might be difficult > to > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > what is in use and what is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > please apply as is and create a patch on top of it to achieve > the > > > > > > > organization you prefer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No reason to apply one patch which we know that needs rework. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree with my argument? > > > > > > > > > > > no ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well; it would be easier if you could explain why. Do you mind to > > > elaborate > > > > it a little more? > > > > > > > if the argument is "No reason to apply one patch which we know that > > > needs rework" : > > > Changing the organization of the bbappend is not just a mater of > editing > > > the patch in a few minutes, it also means testing with and without > > > meta-qt5 and that's very long (and I already did that for v1 when we > > > discussed that initially). > > > 2 days ago you told me that the RFC was fine, now you tell me that > > > needs rework and as I don't have immediate time to rework it so if you > > > want to change the organization or use Chris' way to add layers (which > > > is very elegant) either create a patch to rework this one or rework the > > > patch before applying or drop it for the moment and I may work again > > > on that later (and in that case, please reply with the organization > > > you want so that the work is done only one time). > > > > > > > I asked you to send it as proper patch for review. I didn't noticed you > > have put the bbappend in same level as the other so when I noticed it I > > commented. > > Otavio sometimes you push the pedantry very far : the difference between > the initial patch and what you call the "proper patch" is that the > "proper patch" doesn't have 3 letters (RFC) in the subject and now I > understand that having "RFC" in the subject means you didn't review the > patch. > Usually RFC patches are to discuss the concept not to receive a complete review. We did discuss it and it even allowed Chris to comment on it with a better way of solving the problem - which is what it is the real goal of it I think. I didn't try the patch (I was under high volume of tests here for GPU patches) and once I managed to get it done I started to check for backlog in the mailing list (today) so I did look at it more carefully and found a issue which I didn't see at first look - which I also think is normal - as I can also make mistakes - so I don't think I was pedant but instead a careful maintainer. > > if the argument is "it might be difficult to understand what is in use > > > and what is not" : > > > as soon as you have automatic addition of sublayers you fall in a case > > > where it's not easy to understand what is in use or not whatever is > > > your directory organization. > > > > > > > I'd put it as: > > > > recipes-... > > meta-qt5/recipes-qt/qt5/... > > > > Or as Chris suggested: > > > > recipes-... > > qt5-layer/recipes-qt/qt5 > > > > Both ways looks good for me. > > > please choose ONE way so that the next patch iteration get THE right > one for you. Let's go with Chris proposal than; it avoids future rework in bblayers.conf I think. So the way I see it, it could be done as: * one patch adding the bblayers.conf change * one for Qt5 additions Regards, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://projetos.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
_______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
