Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH] qt5: add mx5 and mx6 support

["Eric Bénard" <eric@eukrea.com>]

Le Fri, 31 May 2013 12:04:11 -0300,
Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :

> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> 
> > Le Fri, 31 May 2013 12:00:08 -0300,
> > Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
> >
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Le Fri, 31 May 2013 10:18:44 -0300,
> > > > Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > - this allow to build qt5 with OpenGL ES support for i.MX5 and
> > i.MX6
> > > > > > - tested on i.MX51, i.MX53 and i.MX6Q
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >  recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase/mx5/qeglfshooks_imx5.cpp |  105
> > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >  recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_5.0.2.bbappend           |   68
> > +++++++++++++++
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Thinking more about it, I think we should put these inside a meta-qt5
> > > > > directory so we know what will be 'included'. Otherwse we may need to
> > > > pick
> > > > > every file depending on each layer and it might be difficult to
> > > > understand
> > > > > what is in use and what is not.
> > > > >
> > > > please apply as is and create a patch on top of it to achieve the
> > > > organization you prefer.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No reason to apply one patch which we know that needs rework.
> > >
> > > Do you agree with my argument?
> > >
> > no ;-)
> >
> 
> Well; it would be easier if you could explain why. Do you mind to elaborate
> it a little more?
> 
if the argument is "No reason to apply one patch which we know that
needs rework" :
Changing the organization of the bbappend is not just a mater of editing
the patch in a few minutes, it also means testing with and without
meta-qt5 and that's very long (and I already did that for v1 when we
discussed that initially).
2 days ago you told me that the RFC was fine, now you tell me that
needs rework and as I don't have immediate time to rework it so if you
want to change the organization or use Chris' way to add layers (which
is very elegant) either create a patch to rework this one or rework the
patch before applying or drop it for the moment and I may work again
on that later (and in that case, please reply with the organization
you want so that the work is done only one time).

if the argument is "it might be difficult to understand what is in use
and what is not" :
as soon as you have automatic addition of sublayers you fall in a case
where it's not easy to understand what is in use or not whatever is
your directory organization.

Eric