Le 02/09/2011 23:49, Paul Menzel a écrit :
Am Freitag, den 02.09.2011, 23:34 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi:
Op 02-09-11 21:29, Andreas Müller schreef:
I would even prefer having additional meta-oe list separated from
oe-dev.
If there's enough need for it, that can get arranged.
Why should that be needed? Maybe proposals could be explained and backed up
with arguments for a discussion.
having a list for legacy oe and a list for new oe seems reasonnable : that's
not the same thing and legacy oe development is no more active (and activity
on the mailing list doesn't really show that oe legacy is dead).
And when a user has understood were to find layers, how to work with all these
layers, where are the recipes he needs in all the layers' directory tree, what
is the logic (or its absence) to classify recipes, how to customize them to
its need, and how to find in all that mess what broke something which was
working before the last pull, I'm sure he has the knowledge to subscribe to
the list of the layers he is using in order to follow their development ;-)
Eric
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
