On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kana...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 07/11/2015 10:57 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> This does touch on something I have wondered about for a while, which is >> whether the time has come to move the GPLv2 pieces to their own layer >> and possibly their own maintainership. Obviously there are pros and cons >> to doing that. >> >> Thoughts? > > I'm all for that, which shouldn't be surprising :) The rationale is that we > need to keep the scope and breadth of oe-core sane and manageable. The > emphasis should be on having lesser amount of high quality, up-to-date > recipes than vice versa.
To play devil's advocate, a counter argument could be: The number of high quality recipes which can be maintained in oe-core depends on the number of developers actively using and contributing to oe-core. More active developers means more recipes can be maintained to a high quality. By restricting the scope of oe-core you reduce the number of developers who are able to use it directly. If the developers who can no longer use oe-core directly lose interest in tracking master between releases or start to go off and maintain their own personal forks, then you reduce the number of developers actively using and contributing to oe-core. Whether oe-core is at a stage in it's life cycle where it would benefit more from growing it's developer base or from knuckling down and focusing on a smaller set of core functionality is an interesting question... > That means a continuous lookout for possible things to remove. Qt4 is one > such thing, old GPLv2 software is another. > > > Alex > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
