> On Feb 19, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Otavio Salvador > <otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Fabio Berton <fabio.ber...@ossystems.com.br> >>> wrote: >>> I noticed that a few days ago were added some python-flask recipes. >>> >>> I've been maintaining a layer with python-flask recipes, hosted here >>> http://code.ossystems.com.br/gitweb?p=meta-python-flask.git;a=summary >>> >>> There are recipes in meta-python-flask that were added to meta-python >>> and I want to simplify maintenance and avoid duplicate recipes. >>> >>> So, do I send recipes from meta-python-flask to meta-python or we move all >>> python-flask recipes from meta-python to meta-python-flask, using a layer >>> only for Flask web framework? >> >> Here is a hierarchy one can envision >> >> 1. Core python runtime support - Oe-core >> 2. python extended modules and infrastructure - meta-python >> >> now if you think this framework is quite commonly used and is kind of core >> to python world, its fine to have it in meta-python, if you think its >> too specific then move the common packages to meta-python >> and maintain it as a separate layer > > Agreed but this is a specific framework which is not 'core' to python. > Do you think we ought to merge those on meta-python or keep them split > out?
Just review it and common pieces can move to meta-python, so you can remove unnecessary recipe copies in multiple layers in future. I don’t have a strong opinion on the framework itself. It can probably stay in its own layer if its not so commonly used.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
