On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: >> If LSB isn't goal of oe-core, then why not move all this: >> >> OE qemux86-64@ ~/build/oe-core/openembedded-core $ find meta -name \*lsb\* >> meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-lsb.bb >> meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-lsb-dev.bb >> meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-lsb-sdk.bb >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsb >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsb/lsb_pidofproc >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsb/lsb_start_daemon >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsb/lsb_log_message >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsb/0001-fix-lsb_release-to-work-with-busybox-head-and-find.patch >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsb/lsb_killproc >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.72.bb >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbtest_1.0.bb >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsb_4.1.bb >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbtest >> meta/recipes-extended/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-lsb.bb >> meta/lib/oe/__pycache__/lsb.cpython-35.pyc >> meta/lib/oe/__pycache__/lsb.cpython-36.pyc >> meta/lib/oe/lsb.pyc >> meta/lib/oe/lsb.py >> >> together with libpng12, to some new meta-lsb layer, preferably outside >> meta-oe repository as I already have enough of this stuff. >> > > A patch to remove them is good since you already found this out. If > they get into a layer of its own > can happen later when lsb interested devs chime in. > >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 14 September 2017 at 14:49, Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux. >>> intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/14/2017 04:42 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14 September 2017 at 11:33, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> LSB compliance isn't a goal of meta-oe as well, otherwise we'd need to >>>>>> add Qt4 to meta-oe too. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Touche. >>>>> >>>>> It still needs to go somewhere though... >>>>> >>>> >>>> How about modifying the LSB tests to make the absence of libpng12 a >>>> warning rather than an error? >>>> >>> >>> Then it won't be doing a LSB test... The LSB is the LSB, we don't claim >>> to support it, but there's a need for a libpng12 recipe for people who want >>> to be close. Currently it's just this one recipe that I'm aware of that >>> isn't already in a layer somewhere. >>> >>> Ross >>> One aspect I missed in this discussion: I there a recipe around depending on libpng12 which cannot use libpng 1.6? This is yet another case I get the the feeling that the priorities others have do not match mine: My topmost priority is to build working images and maintain them to keep them in working condition. Adding and maintaining recipes for sake of outdated standards is waste of time - at least for me.
Andreas -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
