On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Philip Balister schreef op 28-12-13 23:33: > > On 12/28/2013 10:28 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Paul Eggleton schreef op 28-12-13 12:48: > >>> Hi Koen, > >> > >>> On Tuesday 24 December 2013 15:22:32 Koen Kooi wrote: > >>>> Burton, Ross schreef op 23-12-13 19:01: > >>>>> We'd like to integrate Piglit (an OpenGL test suite) into Poky > >>>>> so that we can run automated QA on the GL stack. Piglit is > >>>>> currently residing in meta-oe, but as Poky is a self-contained > >>>>> project we can't just add meta-oe to it: apart from the size of > >>>>> meta-oe, we can't ensure stability if meta-oe makes incompatible > >>>>> changes that affect Poky. > >>>>> > >>>>> Piglit isn't a stand-alone package, there are the dependencies > >>>>> of waffle, python-mako and python-numpy to consider too. There > >>>>> are two possibilities I can see: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Move piglit and deps to oe-core. Piglit is for QA purposes > >>>>> only and pushes the boundaries of "core platform". In a sense > >>>>> this is a repeat of the discussion we had with Midori... does > >>>>> oe-core contain everything needed to sufficiently exercise the > >>>>> core components it ships or not? > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) Add piglit and deps to meta-yocto. Probably a new layer > >>>>> called meta-yocto-qa (or similar) because the Yocto Compatible > >>>>> guidelines forbid mixing distribution policy and recipes. > >>>> > >>>> Speaking of layers, can you *please* rename meta-yocto to > >>>> meta-poky? It's what it's actually is and would remove a lot of > >>>> confusion when trying to explain that yocto is not a distro, even > >>>> if the distro layer is called 'meta-yocto'. > >> > >>> This is a tangent, but a couple of points: > >> > >>> 1) This rename would not come for free. We'd need to update people's > >>> existing bblayers.conf files on the fly, as we did when > >>> meta-yocto-bsp was split out of meta-yocto, and thus bump > >>> LCONF_VERSION; however, doing this only in poky has resulted in > >>> annoying problems when users remove poky from their configurations > >>> (since LCONF_VERSION is out-of-step between Poky and OE-Core, leading > >>> to confusing errors in this situation). Thus I think we'd want to > >>> solve this once and for all by bumping the value in OE-Core as well > >>> as Poky. > >> > >>> 2) If you propose this rename, perhaps you will also consider > >>> renaming meta-oe, since that name within a similarly named > >>> meta-openembedded repository leads to a similar level of > >>> confusion...? > >> > >> I have no problems with renaming that layer since I get confused by > >> this a few times a week myself :) > > > > What would we we rename it to? > > I'm very tempted to suggest 'meta-yocto' >
I definitely find meta-yocto a better option here. It would save me from some confusion when talking about yocto to other people. Related to meta-oe, even if that would be a smaller problem, I think meta-openembedded is a better name for that layer too. -- Andrei Gherzan m: +40.744.478.414 | f: +40.31.816.28.12 _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core