On Monday 10 June 2013 15:13:56 Eric Bénard wrote: > Le Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:07:01 +0200, > Nicolas Dechesne <nicolas.deche...@linaro.org> a écrit : > > thanks for your answer. so, yes I kind of figured out I could do that. But > > in fact I was hoping that re-using the existing packagegroup from oe-core > > *should* be the right thing to do, instead of re-implementing another one. > > and perhaps the packagegroup being called core-qt4e should be restricted > > to 'core' components, and we could have 1 (or more) additional > > packagegroups that could be pulled into images, instead? otherwise what's > > the point of having a 'core QT4e packagegroup' if it's not suitable for > > any real usage? > > true, I'll cook & test a split of the packagegroup to make the examples > & demos optional
This sounds like a good idea. FWIW, the contents of this packagegroup came up on IRC a week or two ago and it was pointed out that the main package includes qt4-embedded which pulls in everything, but also includes a subset of the qt4-embedded-* packages and having both seems a bit pointless. I did test removing qt4-embedded from the packagegroup to see what would be removed from a qt4e-demo-image; unfortunately I don't seem to have the buildhistory output to hand, but IIRC it didn't seem to me that anything we would have needed was being removed. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
