On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 08:41:51AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 06:05, Koen Kooi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> > Hash: SHA1 >> > >> > Op 07-01-12 00:55, Andrea Adami schreef: >> > > * delete patches meant for BSP layers * bump PR >> > >> > With a recipe like xserver-common I don't see a point in going all out BSP >> > on it. This patch just moves things to layers just for the sake of moving >> > it >> > to layers. I strongly suspect that applying this patch will be a net burden >> > on device maintainers instead of a gain. >> > >> >> I agree this is going to be bad at first but those kind of improvements >> always cause some problems for a later gain. Dropping things that ought to >> be in BSP layers is a good thing but only after the "fix other layers" time >> window. >> >> I think this is worth it however it might be better to instead port the >> needed changes to OE-Core and ask other layers to adopt x11-common allowing >> us to remove this later on. This makes the change easier and avoid some >> problems for users IMO. > > This whole recipe has machine specific bits and removing those bits > only of some machines (in this case all from meta-smartphone BSPs) > doesn't improve that recipe. > > So if you want to improve it, merge extra functionality (like > xinput-pointercal) to oe-core and drop this completely, but breaking > some machines doesn't make thinks better. > > Instead of "fixing" it in meta-smartphone BSPs I would just copy whole > xserver-common back to meta-shr, because I don't have time now to fix it > properly and spending time on .bbappends is not worth it in this case. > > Cheers, > > JaMa, from daywork..ffs > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel >
I try to explain again my intent: 1) we have at the moment two xserver-nodm-init, one in meta-oe and one in oe-core 2) this is intrinsecaly bad and moreover the two recipes are totally different with regards to runtime dependencies 3) as it is now, oe-core expects to use x11-common while in meta-oe there is xserver-common 4) xserver-common is an old recipe coming from the oe-classic times, designed to work with gpe environments and targeting mostly kdrive. Thius recipe contains alot of BSP code. 5) today, if one builds core-image-sato distroless for zaurus qvga using meta-oe the xserver won't start because of the bad settings provided by the recipe. So, I already sent a msg in that regard before ( http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2011-October/035564.html ) and now I'm trying to help cleaning both sides. The patch for x11-common was taken in oe-core but this one for meta-oe is unexpectedly under discussion. BE sure my intentions are not to increase maintenance burden, on the opposite I'd like neutral/sane defaults and patches to override those in the BSP layers. Regards Andrea _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
