On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Paul Eggleton <[email protected]> wrote: ... > Currently we have the following overlayed recipes: > > * icon-naming-utils: meta-oe has a newer version (0.8.90 vs OE-Core's 0.8.7) > and it uses BBCLASSEXTEND rather than OE-Core's native recipe. I would propose > to just move the meta-oe version to OE-Core since it appears to be superior.
Agreed. > * libmad: both layers have the same version. The meta-oe version has some > slightly different versions of the MIPS compiler flag fix and -fforce-mem > removal > patches but I think these can be ignored, since the OE-Core versions of these > patches have proper headers and are presumably working. The OE-Core version > has LICENSE_FLAGS that the meta-oe one doesn't, but is missing an avr32- > specific optimisation patch that is in the meta-oe version. What would we do > with the latter? Is it appropriate to add to the OE-Core recipe? Well maybe clean it and keep the avr32 specific optimization? > * tslib: OE-Core has the 1.0 release version, meta-oe has a git recipe that is > ahead of 1.0; the OE-Core version has two patches not in the meta-oe version > but that both have been merged upstream in the git revision being used in the > meta-oe version. There is no newer stable release. What do we do here? Should > we ask upstream (Chris) for a new stable release? It'd be good; in meanwhile we could move meta-oe version to OE-Core. ... > As far as bbappends go we have: > > * meta-oe/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.20.2.bbappend > As far as I can tell this just adds an /etc/busybox-syslog.default file > containing OPTIONS="-C64" and seems to have been added for systemd support. > I'm not sure why this wasn't moved to meta-systemd, but I assume it needs to > be merged into OE-Core now that systemd support is being added there... ? Agreed. > * meta-oe/recipes-extended/polkit/polkit_0.104.bbappend > Another bbappend apparently for systemd support. Again, this should have been > moved to meta-systemd; do we now need to merge it into OE-Core? Agreed. > * meta-oe/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qte-toolchain-target.bbappend > This is adding qwt to the qte toolchain. As far as I am concerned this is a > distro policy decision - Qwt is a third-party library that is not part of Qt. > I believe this should be moved to the layers for whichever distros want this. I think people using qte toolchain ought to comment on it. > * meta-oe/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-x11-free_4.8.4.bbappend > * meta-oe/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-embedded_4.8.4.bbappend > These two add MySQL and PostgreSQL support to Qt and Qt/Embedded. I see this > as a distro policy decision; these should move to the layers for whichever > distros want this. FWIW, this is particularly egregious if you've already > built Qt, then add meta-oe and find Qt is being unexpectedly rebuilt. Yes; I think I agree also because *most* people won't use these backends so better to handle this in the specific layers/distros/whatever needs it. > * meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/gstreamer/gst-ffmpeg_0.10.13.bbappend > Builds against external libav instead of using the builtin copy of ffmpeg, > apparently for better performance on ARM (and presumably that is not the only > benefit). It's less clear to me what should be done with this, but I'd still > rather it could be eliminated. OE-Core does not have ffmpeg/libav; one wonders > if it should or not. Dropping it would be a regression IMO so we might try to work in a solution to OE-Core? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
