Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Sat 2018-03-17 @ 07:23:52 AM, Philip Balister wrote: > > Would anyone like to make an honest, unbiased attempt at answering: > > 1. What problem(s) was the post-OE-classic split attempting to solve? > > The all in one approach is untestable. Thank you. I was able to find the old

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 03/16/2018 08:50 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > On Tue 2018-02-20 @ 11:41:15 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> The separate layers and maintainership is the way we designed the new >> layered approach to OE to scale. > > I only became an active user of OE after the OE-classic split; I had used it a >

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue 2018-02-20 @ 11:41:15 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > The separate layers and maintainership is the way we designed the new > layered approach to OE to scale. I only became an active user of OE after the OE-classic split; I had used it a couple times during the OE-classic era, but not very

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:44 PM, akuster808 wrote: > > > On 03/01/2018 01:04 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: >> On 03/01/2018 03:17 AM, akuster808 wrote: >>> We had/have a situation with the Yocto 4.12 kernel that broke wireguard >>> in meta-networking. Their are two patches

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 03/01/2018 08:44 PM, akuster808 wrote: These two commits introduced an ABI change. http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/linux-yocto-4.12/commit/include/linux/random.h?h=standard/base=6e4990d8d226e1861a5a2b632cf93bc70feab3af

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 03/01/2018 01:04 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 03/01/2018 03:17 AM, akuster808 wrote: >> We had/have a situation with the Yocto 4.12 kernel that broke wireguard >> in meta-networking. Their are two patches that don't exist in K.O. which >> are causing the problem. >> Meta-openembedded

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 03/01/2018 03:17 AM, akuster808 wrote: We had/have a situation with the Yocto 4.12 kernel that broke wireguard in meta-networking. Their are two patches that don't exist in K.O. which are causing the problem. Meta-openembedded can't fix that, do I blacklist wireguard? Wireguard builds fine

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/28/2018 11:33 PM, Andreas Müller wrote: Isn't there somebody outside willing/capable/having enough time to move to gnome 3? This would be the best way to end the gnome2 bit-rott discussion and we'd have a desktop which is commonly used and addresses touch input. I tried that many years ago

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/28/2018 01:33 PM, Andreas Müller wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Alexander Kanavin > wrote: >> On 02/20/2018 12:45 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >>> Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are >>> actively developed and

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/28/2018 09:17 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 02/20/2018 12:45 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe?  Some layers are >> actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others are >> basically bitrotting and only get touched when

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 02/20/2018 12:45 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> >> Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are >> actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others are >>

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/20/2018 12:45 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others are basically bitrotting and only get touched when something else causes them to break world builds (one

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Thu, 2018-02-22 at 07:53 +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote: >> On 21 February 2018 at 15:09, Martin Hundebøll >> wrote: >> >> > Now that the discussion branched out a bit... >> > >> > We would like better

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Thu, 2018-02-22 at 07:53 +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote: > On 21 February 2018 at 15:09, Martin Hundebøll > wrote: > > > Now that the discussion branched out a bit... > > > > We would like better support for this too. Our setup uses a > > "manifest" > > repository with git

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 20:33 +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:58:17 +0100 > Patrick Ohly wrote: > > The approach used by meta-freescale works with older releases. > > BBFILES_DYNAMIC [1] (supported by bitbake 1.36/Yocto 2.4) is a bit > > more > >

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 21 February 2018 at 15:09, Martin Hundebøll wrote: > Now that the discussion branched out a bit... > > We would like better support for this too. Our setup uses a "manifest" > repository with git submodules to setup the layers: > > > yocto/ > > meta-poky/ > >

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 2018-02-21 14:57, Tom Rini wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:10:25PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: I could

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:58:17 +0100 Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 14:14 +, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > But that kind of mechanism seems highly prone to breakage and > > > likely to > > > be highly contentious even if it was shown to be reliable, so it > > >

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 18:52 +, Richard Purdie wrote: > Even once we do that, we (as in YP) can't send out a clear message > about what we're testing and users will clone meta-oe and expect > everything to work. So right now I do have problems trying to get to > a point where YP can use meta-oe

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 14:14 +, Burton, Ross wrote: >> > But that kind of mechanism seems highly prone to breakage and >> > likely to >> > be highly contentious even if it was shown to be reliable, so it >> > may

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 14:14 +, Burton, Ross wrote: > > But that kind of mechanism seems highly prone to breakage and > > likely to > > be highly contentious even if it was shown to be reliable, so it > > may not > > get beyond a "that'd be nice" thing for me. > > > > Unless someone else has

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:00:27AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:10:25PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador > >> wrote:

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

[Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.21 (Wed 09:20) Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:02:53AM -0500, Joe MacDonald wrote: > > [Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.21 (Wed 11:22) Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > > There is good example of inter-layer depe

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:02:53AM -0500, Joe MacDonald wrote: > [Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.21 (Wed 11:22) Martin Jansa wrote: > > > There is good example of inter-layer dependencies from real world: > > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/20

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 21 February 2018 at 14:02, Joe MacDonald wrote: > Honestly, now that I'm back from my vacation, I think the right thing is > to add the dependency and then start thinking about a way to specify > layer dependencies with greater granularity than on a meta-layer basis.

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

[Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.21 (Wed 11:22) Martin Jansa wrote: > There is good example of inter-layer dependencies from real world: > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2017-February/111447.html > > Do you want > A) new git repository meta-libio-

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:10:25PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie >> >

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Joe MacDonald <joe_macdon...@mentor.com> > wrote: >> [Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.21 (Wed 09:49) Martin Jansa wrote: >> >>&

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:10:25PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie > > wrote: > >> I could combo-layer pieces of meta-oe into

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Joe MacDonald <joe_macdon...@mentor.com> wrote: > [Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.21 (Wed 09:49) Martin Jansa wrote: > >> > I need an updated python- package for an unrelated package >> >> And how far will you go? &g

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

[Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.21 (Wed 09:49) Martin Jansa wrote: > > I need an updated python- package for an unrelated package > > And how far will you go? > > If you want just newer python- and nothing else, will you take other > changes to other python-* rec

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: >>> I need an updated python- package for an unrelated package >> >> And how far will you go? >> > > pretty far. I work with a lot of

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: >> I need an updated python- package for an unrelated package > > And how far will you go? > pretty far. I work with a lot of deep stacks that have a lot of specific dependencies as well as compatibility issues. > If

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

There is good example of inter-layer dependencies from real world: http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2017-February/111447.html Do you want A) new git repository meta-libio-socket-ssl-perl so that meta-networking will depend on this on instead of whole meta-perl B)

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: >> I'm actually very worried about these (re)tired maintainers. If the > layers were more independent it would allow some of the patch handling > responsibilities and testing responsibilities to move to other people, >

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

> I'm actually very worried about these (re)tired maintainers. If the layers were more independent it would allow some of the patch handling responsibilities and testing responsibilities to move to other people, reducing the load on those maintainers. Armin can update his own view, but for me the

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

> I need an updated python- package for an unrelated package And how far will you go? If you want just newer python- and nothing else, will you take other changes to other python-* recipes from meta-python layer? There is a lot of recipes there, if you're so picky about updates, then you

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > On 2/20/18 9:13 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:50 AM, akuster808 wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 02/20/2018 02:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: Hi, Is now a good time to talk

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie > wrote: >> I could combo-layer pieces of meta-oe into poky but I'd imagine that >> would create more problems than it would

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > I could combo-layer pieces of meta-oe into poky but I'd imagine that > would create more problems than it would solve too and given the > general dislike of combo-layer, I think ultimately better layer

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 23:27 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > Richard, I agree with all you said. > > But I still don't see how replacing meta-oe git repository with 10 > different git repositories helps with anything. > > It won't give you more time, it would only cause more work to already >

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > Richard, I agree with all you said. > > But I still don't see how replacing meta-oe git repository with 10 > different git repositories helps with anything. > > It won't give you more time, it would only cause more

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

Richard, I agree with all you said. But I still don't see how replacing meta-oe git repository with 10 different git repositories helps with anything. It won't give you more time, it would only cause more work to already exhausted and (re)tired meta-oe maintainers. It won't make the layers

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 11:15 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On 2/20/18 10:52 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 10:40 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > > > On 2/20/18 10:00 AM, Tim Orling wrote: > > > > > > > > I am open to discussion about what direction we go. Individual > > > >

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/20/2018 10:40 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On 2/20/18 10:00 AM, Tim Orling wrote: >> The recent improvements to the Auto Upgrade Helper have made maintenance of >> meta-perl less effort and therefore you have seen an uptick in my updates >> to recipes. I also plan to mass-add ptest to all perl

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 2/20/18 10:52 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 10:40 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> On 2/20/18 10:00 AM, Tim Orling wrote: >>> I am open to discussion about what direction we go. Individual >>> layers that >>> are curated and built together by YP auto builders sounds like an >>>

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 2/20/18 9:46 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > Repositories have reputations. OE-Core is fairly heavily curated and > tested and has certain "guarantees" about what people can expect to > work. The meta-oe repo is a little trickier as the different pieces do > have different 'SLA's (service level

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 10:40 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On 2/20/18 10:00 AM, Tim Orling wrote: > > I am open to discussion about what direction we go. Individual > > layers that > > are curated and built together by YP auto builders sounds like an > > intriguing path. If this was coupled with

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 2/20/18 9:13 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:50 AM, akuster808 wrote: >> >> >> On 02/20/2018 02:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are >>> actively developed and maintained

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 2/20/18 2:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > Hi, > > Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are > actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others are > basically bitrotting and only get touched when something else causes them > to break world builds

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 2/20/18 10:00 AM, Tim Orling wrote: > The recent improvements to the Auto Upgrade Helper have made maintenance of > meta-perl less effort and therefore you have seen an uptick in my updates > to recipes. I also plan to mass-add ptest to all perl module recipes > "sometime soon", which will

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

I still fail to see how splitting the layers into separate repositories will magically help with the quality of recipes stored there. meta-python, meta-perl, meta-filesystems, meta-gnome, meta-networking, meta-webserver, meta-xfce all depend on meta-oe layer. Build testing fewer layers in

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

The recent improvements to the Auto Upgrade Helper have made maintenance of meta-perl less effort and therefore you have seen an uptick in my updates to recipes. I also plan to mass-add ptest to all perl module recipes "sometime soon", which will further simplify my upgrade workflow and add to the

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

Repositories have reputations. OE-Core is fairly heavily curated and tested and has certain "guarantees" about what people can expect to work. The meta-oe repo is a little trickier as the different pieces do have different 'SLA's (service level agreements). Some pieces like

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:50 AM, akuster808 wrote: > > > On 02/20/2018 02:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are >> actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others are >> basically

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 20/02/2018 12.45, Burton, Ross wrote: Hi, Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others are basically bitrotting and only get touched when something else causes them to break world builds (one

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/20/2018 02:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > Hi, > > Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are > actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others are > basically bitrotting and only get touched when something else causes them > to break world

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

[[oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.20 (Tue 10:45) Burton, Ross wrote: > Hi, > > Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers are > actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others are > basically bitrotting and only get touched when something else

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/20/2017 03:18 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:31:03PM -0800, Richard Purdie wrote: On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 14:45 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: And I'm with these gyus. Splitting the git repository doesn't solve any underlying problems. The real problem from my point of

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:31:03PM -0800, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 14:45 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > > And I'm with these gyus. Splitting the git repository doesn't solve > > any underlying problems. The real problem from my point of view is > > very few of use are

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

[Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 17.02.19 (Sun 19:31) Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 14:45 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > > And I'm with these gyus. Splitting the git repository doesn't solve > > any underlying problems. The real problem from my point of view

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 14:45 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > And I'm with these gyus. Splitting the git repository doesn't solve > any underlying problems. The real problem from my point of view is > very few of use are actually paid to maintain the layers we maintain. > > Employers want to pay

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 17 February 2017 at 18:02, Martin Jansa wrote: > 1) RSS is good thing. > > 2) The breakage wasn't caused by lack of maintainers (at least I don't >think that I or Joe were the bottleneck for integrating the fixes). > > 3) More maintainers doesn't mean more

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > The recent storm of breakage in meta-oe caused by recipe specific sysroots > was quite dramatic: > > ross@flashheart ~/Yocto/meta-oe ((044e518...)) > $ git grep PNBLACKLIST| wc -l > 320 > > Is it time to talk about

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/17/2017 09:07 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: The recent storm of breakage in meta-oe caused by recipe specific sysroots was quite dramatic: ross@flashheart ~/Yocto/meta-oe ((044e518...)) $ git grep PNBLACKLIST| wc -l 320 If I recall correctly we gave Martin the thumbs up to use

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Joe MacDonald <joe_macdon...@mentor.com> wrote: > [Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 17.02.17 (Fri 19:02) Martin Jansa wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:24:09PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:07

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On 02/17/2017 01:28 PM, Joe MacDonald wrote: > [Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 17.02.17 (Fri 19:02) Martin Jansa wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:24:09PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> w

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

[Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 17.02.17 (Fri 19:02) Martin Jansa wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:24:09PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > > > The recent storm of breakage in meta-oe c

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:24:09PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > > The recent storm of breakage in meta-oe caused by recipe specific sysroots > > was quite dramatic: > > > > ross@flashheart ~/Yocto/meta-oe

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > The recent storm of breakage in meta-oe caused by recipe specific sysroots > was quite dramatic: > > ross@flashheart ~/Yocto/meta-oe ((044e518...)) > $ git grep PNBLACKLIST| wc -l > 320 > > Is it time to talk about

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Op 01-02-12 12:11, Otavio Salvador schreef: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 08:33, Koen Kooi k...@dominion.thruhere.net wrote: I'm waiting for FOSDEM and ELC to discuss this face to face. I won't be on those events but I'd like to participate of the

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wednesday 25 January 2012 12:48:11 Paul Eggleton wrote: The meta-oe layer [1] is becoming the home for additional recipes that we miss from OE-Classic that don't have another obvious layer to go into, and this is a good thing. However I think that meta-oe is already in a state where quite a

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

Op 1 feb. 2012, om 11:07 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven: On Wednesday 25 January 2012 12:48:11 Paul Eggleton wrote: The meta-oe layer [1] is becoming the home for additional recipes that we miss from OE-Classic that don't have another obvious layer to go into, and this is a good

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 08:33, Koen Kooi k...@dominion.thruhere.net wrote: I'm waiting for FOSDEM and ELC to discuss this face to face. I won't be on those events but I'd like to participate of the discussion so please use the mailing list. -- Otavio Salvador O.S.

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Op 01-02-12 12:11, Otavio Salvador schreef: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 08:33, Koen Kooi k...@dominion.thruhere.net wrote: I'm waiting for FOSDEM and ELC to discuss this face to face. I won't be on those events but I'd like to participate of the

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 06:33:13PM +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: I like the idea of putting toolchains in a layer. Wrt DP = -1: I feel if a recipe needs DP = -1 it is not good enough to be added to meta-oe. Probably it is more something for an unstable layer. (and DP = -1 encourages the

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

2012/1/26 Martin Jansa martin.ja...@gmail.com On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 06:33:13PM +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: I like the idea of putting toolchains in a layer. Wrt DP = -1: I feel if a recipe needs DP = -1 it is not good enough to be added to meta-oe. Probably it is more something

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 03:45:52PM +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: 2012/1/26 Martin Jansa martin.ja...@gmail.com On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 06:33:13PM +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: I like the idea of putting toolchains in a layer. Wrt DP = -1: I feel if a recipe needs DP = -1 it

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On 26.01.2012 17:11, Martin Jansa wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 03:45:52PM +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: - and if a recipe is not well enough tested it should probably not end up in meta-oe anyway (but better e.g. in meta-oe-next or meta-oe-new or whatever you want to call the super

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Martin Jansa martin.ja...@gmail.com wrote: What I'm missing is use-case when for example with libsoup-2.4 I'm adding unstable version, because actually webkit-efl has random runtime crashes with stable version, but works better with unstable one. So I want to

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

2012/1/25 Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com Hi all, The meta-oe layer [1] is becoming the home for additional recipes that we miss from OE-Classic that don't have another obvious layer to go into, and this is a good thing. However I think that meta-oe is already in a state where

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:48:11PM +, Paul Eggleton wrote: Hi all, The meta-oe layer [1] is becoming the home for additional recipes that we miss from OE-Classic that don't have another obvious layer to go into, and this is a good thing. However I think that meta-oe is already in a

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On 01/25/2012 07:48 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: I think what most people want when they enable meta-oe in their layer configuration is #1, and it's probably OK to get #2 along with it. They do not however expect versions of toolchains, eglibc or other fairly fundamental bits and pieces

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wednesday 25 January 2012 15:10:18 Martin Jansa wrote: I don't see problems as it's now and I fear that splitting it even more will result only in more complexity. We deal with a high-level of complexity in OE, I don't think there's any getting away from it; and I'm not entirely convinced

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On 01/25/2012 09:47 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2012 09:34:53 Philip Balister wrote: On 01/25/2012 07:48 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: I think what most people want when they enable meta-oe in their layer configuration is #1, and it's probably OK to get #2 along with it. They

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2012 15:10:18 Martin Jansa wrote: And that DEFAULT_PREFERRENCE should be respected across layers, IIRC if you add newer less-well tested version of some recipe (like I did with

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wednesday 25 January 2012 09:34:53 Philip Balister wrote: On 01/25/2012 07:48 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: I think what most people want when they enable meta-oe in their layer configuration is #1, and it's probably OK to get #2 along with it. They do not however expect versions of

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

I like the idea of putting toolchains in a layer. Wrt DP = -1: I feel if a recipe needs DP = -1 it is not good enough to be added to meta-oe. Probably it is more something for an unstable layer. (and DP = -1 encourages the growth of deadwood; I still recall in OE that there were some recipes that

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wednesday 25 January 2012 11:00:53 Philip Balister wrote: We should try and have a face to face meeting with OE developers at ELC in a few weeks to talk about some of these issues. Unfortunately I won't be at ELC in person. Time difference and technology allowing I could be there virtually

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks fransmeulenbro...@gmail.com wrote: Wrt DP = -1: I feel if a recipe needs DP = -1 it is not good enough to be added to meta-oe. Probably it is more something for an unstable layer. (and DP = -1 encourages the growth of deadwood; I still

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 17:41 +, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2012 11:00:53 Philip Balister wrote: We should try and have a face to face meeting with OE developers at ELC in a few weeks to talk about some of these issues. Unfortunately I won't be at ELC in person. Time

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com wrote: As I see it, meta-oe is trying provide the following:  1) Additional recipes that are not in OE-Core  2) Additional functionality for OE-Core recipes that we can't enable in OE- Core itself (e.g. enabling

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wednesday 25 January 2012 09:49:14 Khem Raj wrote: meta-oe was started to fill in gaps that oe-core would have for existing oe users since oe-core will not have all required functionality and so distros could migrate to using oe-core and not loose the bells and whistles they already have.

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On 01/25/2012 12:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 17:41 +, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2012 11:00:53 Philip Balister wrote: We should try and have a face to face meeting with OE developers at ELC in a few weeks to talk about some of these issues.

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 15:45 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: On 01/25/2012 12:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: Agreed. I think the mailing lists ought to remain the primary forum for decision-making. If there's something that needs to be discussed, let's do it here. If we can't reach a

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On 01/25/2012 04:03 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 15:45 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: On 01/25/2012 12:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: Agreed. I think the mailing lists ought to remain the primary forum for decision-making. If there's something that needs to be discussed, let's

Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2012 09:49:14 Khem Raj wrote: meta-oe was started to fill in gaps that oe-core would have for existing oe users  since oe-core will not have all required functionality and so distros