Op 8 aug. 2012, om 14:36 heeft Martin Jansa <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 01:23:08PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 12:01 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >>> Op 8 aug. 2012, om 10:41 heeft "Burton, Ross" <[email protected]> het >>> volgende geschreven: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As everyone who's used it can attest, Web (the optional browser in >>>> Sato) is pretty rough. Part of my plans about replacing Sato with a >>>> leaner environment involves replacing it with Midori, and if there >>>> isn't any disagreements I'll work on a submission to merge Midori into >>>> Sato now for everyone who expects the Sato web browser to be useful. >>>> >>>> This will involve pulling a few projects from meta-oe to oe-core: >>>> ca-certificates, python-docutils and vala specifically (although its >>>> possible that we can drop the vala dependency). >>> >>> Adding more stuff to oe-core is a bad idea. You should take this >>> opportunity to split all the sato stuff into its own layer. >> >> I feel very strongly that having a core layer with no way of >> demonstrating and testing it is a very bad idea. I haven't changed my >> mind about this and am very unlikely to. "How do you know it works?" is >> the question you ask about package upgrades for example. > > And does it need to be in the same layer? > > Why not test webkit-gtk from oe-core with midori from meta-oe layer? > Or meta-browser layer if meta-oe is too big for testing webkit-gtk. Exactly, you can't make an argument against extra layers with a straight face, since oe-core is all about layers. There are a ton of recipes in oe-core that need extra layers to get properly tested (QT comes to mind), so I don't get why webkit (or by extension sato) should be so different. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
