Re: [meta-arago][master][PATCH] meta-arago: break dependency on meta-arago-demos

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 05:12:23PM -0600, Randolph Sapp wrote:
> On Wed Jan 22, 2025 at 4:51 PM CST, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 02:33:12PM -0600, Randolph Sapp wrote:
> > > On Tue Jan 21, 2025 at 1:17 PM CST, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:54:39PM -0600, Andrew Davis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> > > > > On 1/21/25 9:16 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 1/20/2025 3:13 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > > > >>On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 01:29:51PM -0600, Randolph Sapp via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> > > > > >>>From: Randolph Sapp <rs@ti.com>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Remove any explicit dependencies on meta-arago-demos. These were the
> > > > > >>>last of the "demos" in this layer and they were only being built for
> > > > > >>>legacy devices. Demos should primarily be in layers above this unless
> > > > > >>>they are used for functionality testing.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Why not move those pieces to meta-arago-demos then?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>E.g. move the packagegroups there and add bbappends for the default image and
> > > > > >>world recipes, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Basically make meta-arago-demos an island unto itself.  If you include it, 
> > > > > >then you get it, if you don't then no harm.  Make sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > Will we test with and without this layer? If not then we will end up breaking
> > > > > things and missing dependencies between layers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Seems like a lot of maintenence for a layer with just a couple demos. Demos
> > > > > that should probably all go up into focus SDK layers anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Should meta-arago-demos be deprecated and removed in its entirety then? Or 
> > > > does it only apply to a few select that are still in meta-arago-distro?
> > > 
> > > Yeah, current plan is to drop this layer entirely, just wanted to do it in a
> > > sane order. I put a note of that in the tear-off section. Still waiting on these
> > > patches to be merged before continuing though. Still got a few more patches for
> > > reworking Qt dependencies and enabling Qt6.
> >
> > I would like to request better commit messages for both of these patches - 
> > this one and the one Andrew linked for the config change.
> 
> Noted.
> 
> > I do appreciate the difficulty with cross-dependency of thses changes - first 
> > you update meta-arago-distro to not depend on meta-arago-demos, then you need 
> > to remove meta-arago-demos references from the layer setup configs, and only 
> > then you can finally remove meta-arago-demos layer itself, if that's the plan.
> 
> Funny thing about that, meta-arago-demos was created without properly creating a
> dependency in the meta-arago-distro to track it.

Ah, yeah, that was my oversight - I take full responsibility fot that. At the 
time we were cleaning meta-arago-extras and all the demos were extracted from 
that layer, but I totally missed updating meta-arago-distro:
https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-arago/commit/?id=ff0d17778adbccda2d97b206976b45fe199c970e


> > But the first 2 patches do not paint a bigger picture, specifically not 
> > explaining the actual reason behind these very invasive changes.
> 
> This was discussed in the Webex Yocto channel and 2 other email threads. I could
> have sent out a message on the mailing list but it would have arrived 5 minutes
> before this patch because I was already testing things back in December.
> 
> > I do know about the Qt6 plans and you briefly mention it here later in the 
> > discussion. But for anyone outside the internal discussions it is not clear 
> > what is going on and why. Moreover, is the plan to have any Qt6 demos and 
> > re-use the meta-arago-demos layer? Or is the plan to not have any demos and 
> > relegate that to downstream SDK layers, if nedded?
> >
> > Thanks.
> 
> The plan is to not have any demos that are not strictly used for testing in this
> repo. Downstream SDK layers will be reworking their existing demos for Qt6,
> picking these up if they are applicable (but nobody seemed to care about these
> demos in particular).
> 
> The Qt6 stuff is somewhat new. First week of December was when a decision was
> made and an email was sent out shortly after announcing that. I seem to have
> incorrectly assumed you guys were in the loop, my bad.

I believe there was a slight misunderstanding here. I do have some internal 
insight, but what I was looking for and asking for here, is to have a commit 
message that would clearly explain for any outsider what are the high level 
plans for these changes and why they are being made. A concise version of the 
above 2 paragraphs w/o referring to any internal communications... :)

Both of the patches mostly say "breaking the dependency", which is a bit odd 
reason for completely removing the entire layer and all the demos.

-- 
Denys