On Friday 03 January 2014 13:25:13 Andrei Gherzan wrote: > 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.
I'm not following; meta-yocto is already called meta-yocto ... ? Maybe you didn't realise Koen was joking... > Related to meta-oe, even if that would be a smaller problem, I think > meta-openembedded is a better name for that layer too. That doesn't solve the problem I was talking about, namely that there's little distinction between meta-openembedded the repository (that contains a number of layers) and meta-oe which is one of those layers. These are two different things and the similar naming makes it hard to always know which one people are talking about. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
