On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:16:00AM +0200, Samuel Stirtzel wrote: > 2014-05-14 21:04 GMT+02:00 Otavio Salvador <[email protected]>: > > Hello folks, > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:27:39PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >>>> qtdeclarative requires accessibility to be enabled and it is added by > >>>> default to the toolchain so we ought to have it enabled to ensure the > >>>> default toolchain generation works. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> > >> ... > >>> As I told you on gtalk, I would prefer default to stay as minimal as > >>> posible, why don't you change packagegroup-qt5-toolchain-target.bb to > >>> use RRECOMMENDS instead of RDEPENDS so that missing > >>> qtquickcontrols-qmlplugins package doesn't break it when it's not > >>> available (because it's empty)? > >> > >> I don't have a strong opinion for either case however I think we ought > >> to know what other meta-qt5 users think about it. > >> > >> In support to this patch addition I think we ought to provide the most > >> used features of Qt5 working out of box to users have a good first > >> use. Special cases can customize it per need basis. I think QML is > >> common enough for us to provide full support for it by default. > > > > > > Martin and I have different views on this topic and I'd like to merge > > or drop this patch. Could people comment on this one? > > > > > We may want to be able to let the user choose between 2 flavors of Qt. > > One of them could be a standard Qt (which is what I use), other users > seem to prefer a stripped down version with some features switched > off. > > As 'Giuseppe D'Angelo <[email protected]>' noted on qt-interest [1]: > "Apart from this: builds with feature switches are not really tested, > so I'm not surprised that [there are combinations that don't even > build]. But we totally welcome patches that would fix such builds." > > So IMO it would be a good idea to have a constantly tested low > footprint version. > > There is no one size fits all in this case, but can we provide 2 > versions that work for 99% of the users?
What you mean by 2 versions here? There is simple PACKAGECONFIG option to enable more features (most people will probably enable icu, gl* and accessibility). But we don't want 2 qtbase recipes one with more PACKAGECONFIG options enabled and other with more disabled. -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
